On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:24:41 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> You seem to suggest there are issues, do you have any specific
> concerns that we can address?
I've still not seen a full description of the problem you're trying to
solve with prefix. The last time we tried this there were a lot of
unansw
Ciaran,
On 02-04-2009 15:47:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:53:47 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> While the first variable (EPREFIX) can be set using an eclass, the
>> latter two need to be set by the package manager. In particular ED,
>> because the value of D might no
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:53:47 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> While the first variable (EPREFIX) can be set using an eclass, the
> latter two need to be set by the package manager. In particular ED,
> because the value of D might not be known. EROOT and ED are
> convenience variables. Making them a
On 01-04-2009 05:30:01 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like the council to discuss the addition of three variables to
EAPI3.
- EPR
> On , 01 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
Since EAPI 3 is on the agenda already, I would ask the council to
consider inclusion of "
2009/4/1 Mike Frysinger :
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like the Council to discuss the matter of Portage repeatedly
changing behaviour in ebuild-visible ways
I win, as always *g*
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:30:17PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> That's worrying, I'm not supposed to have commit access to the tree.
> trustees docs, yes but that's the limit. To my knowledge, I've never
> made a commit there either.
That's for ALL of CVS. Not just gentoo-x86.
--
Robin Hugh Johns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008.04.07 21:37, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
> >
> > I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at
> least
> > one commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the
> slacker
> > script to list the a
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:10:03AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
> Guess I wasn't clear enough. There is no filtering in that list based on
> the developer role in Gentoo. It's all Gentoo developers marked as active
> in LDAP. We first need to add the LDAP attributes before we can add the
> filter
Mike Pagano kirjoitti:
On Monday 07 April 2008 04:37:18 pm Petteri Räty wrote:
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
So I wrote a new slacker script that gets the active developers from
LDAP and checks the activity for the last 60 days. One repoman commit
should equal a couple entries on history but not sur
Petteri Räty wrote:
26767 ingmar
41523 philantrop
Go KDE go! :)
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Monday 07 April 2008 04:37:18 pm Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
> >
> So I wrote a new slacker script that gets the active developers from
> LDAP and checks the activity for the last 60 days. One repoman commit
> should equal a couple entries on history but not sure on that. ro
Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least
one commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker
script to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and
leave the interpretation to undertakers.
Regards,
Petter
В Чтв, 03/04/2008 в 18:56 +0300, Petteri Räty пишет:
> >> Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
> >> raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
> I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least
> one c
On Thursday 03 April 2008 14:55:43 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even
> >> try to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide
> >> to arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or
> >> cryptographic keys ...
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need
> to boot them. Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in
> having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up
> with hundreds of s
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 13:49 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> > > If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
> > >
> >
> > True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where people
> > worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't pose so
On 09:53 Thu 03 Apr , Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > Petteri R??ty wrote:
> >>> Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the
> >>> existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA
> >>> members
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
> I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least one
> commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker script
> to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and leave the
> interpretation to undertakers.
Interesting i
Chrissy Fullam kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, may
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
> > 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> >
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe e
If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
Many things would be easier then. I'm all for switching to git.
--
Best regards, Wulf
pgpextitGtwiV.pgp
Description: PGP Digital Signature
On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Petteri R??ty wrote:
>> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
>>> Petteri R??ty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're
>>> forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project a
Mike Auty wrote:
So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to
have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel
of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice
but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more
commun
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about.
> >
> > We're way ahead of you here...
> >
> Or so you think.
>
> So now that you've tried to label me as a dimwit we're past that
> stage and can now r
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the
best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs
robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which wou
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the
> best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs
> robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which would cut
> out a large pa
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
invalidated.
By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
> > code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
> > invalidated.
> By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...
>
> The idea is to lim
Mike Auty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every package
would also be signed, and would only be installed
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all accepta
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
>
> I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
> kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Ever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
| It's about quality not quantity maybe?
It's about both, and getting the balance right is effectively what this
boils down to (as do many discussions on -dev). There's those devs who
want high levels of QA and those de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|
I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every package
would also be signed
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:56:59 +0100
Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> | Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
> | user's systems.
>
> Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
> package signing system, so that when a d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
| Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
| user's systems.
Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
package signing system, so that when a dev becomes a libability, their
keys
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't
pose so many security risks. With the c
2008-04-03 13:35 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał(a):
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
> > > As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate
> about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, if
> gent
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where
> people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't
> pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doin
Petteri Räty wrote:
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that
we have many different roles.
>
And you are assuming that undertakers
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claim
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
I agree with the above point.
Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have
stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on
recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood
On 01 Apr 2008 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
I'd like initial comments from the Council on PMS please. We're
reachi
On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain
> packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the
> maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs? Devs who keep claiming
> packages only t
Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal survey
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security
issues either. This means that you should have devaway on.
That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise t
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 22:19 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
> > raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
>
> Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
> problem in
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security
issues either.
I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or
bugs. They may be entirely able
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
either.
I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or
bugs. They may be entirely able to respond to securit
Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
either. This means that you should have devaway on.
That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that
he ca
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
> either. This means that you should have devaway on.
So if you don't maintain enough packages to commit on average once a
week, you're not worth hav
Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti:
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
I don't have numb
Mike Auty kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind
Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action
against inf
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
> How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
> sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
-
On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
> How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
> sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?
It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.
--
Best regards, Wulf
signature.asc
Descrip
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very l
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
> > that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
> > were ever going to be published publicly
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
> that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
> were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.
As far i remember the idea
Ned Ludd kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>>> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>>> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
On 4/5/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many
people saying the Council needs to "grow a pair" and actually try to
enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals
running around screaming like we killed
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> another one i had
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the w
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 22:15 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
> > If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
> > them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
> > on the next election.
> Especially a
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> another one i had m
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> another one i had me
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
> having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
> those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
> Council meeting logs be made public
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
> If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
> them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
> on the next election.
Especially as there are council members who don't rely like any privacy
in th
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned earlier:
- a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public arch
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:24:06 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
> on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
> up with on his own. If he really does have the logs, he wouldn't be
> s
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:04:09 -0700
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:
>
> Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some
> person(s) who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and
> simple. If that's true,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Doty wrote:
>> apparent decline of QA in our packages.
>
> Anyone got numbers for that? Talking opinions, as in the SCM discussion,
> isn't real meaningful.
>
> Thanks,
> Donnie
What metric would you use? the number of
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:04 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
> >> because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
> >> lo
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
>> because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
>> log a secret...
>
> The log contains information that was given to
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
> because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
> log a secret...
The log contains information that was given to us in confidence. How
much plai
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:47:37 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean, all this "the Council is hiding something" conspiracy theory
> is bullshit.
Then why are certain Council members, you included, threatening to
remove other Council members' and Gentoo developers' access if log
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary
> along the lines of "we discussed x and y and decided z" *has* to be
> less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work
> and considering resig
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
> > them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
> > on the next election.
>
> Which is all very well, but it's kind of hard to evaluate the
> effectiveness of Co
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:09:12 +0200
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
> > having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content
> > of those
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:19 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
> > not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
> > permit them to stop something that t
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
> > things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
> > rule at all concerning limitation
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:09:12 Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
> > having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
> > those meetings but even the to
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
> not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
> permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
> This is very little red tape IMH
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:27:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the
> work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to discuss ... that
> seems to not be the case
Ah, sorry about that. As you said, right now there i
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
> having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
> those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
> Council meeting logs
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
our back. If the council never
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:17:18 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
> > I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
> > discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council
> > power, since it see
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - PMS:
> - status update from spb
> - moving it to Gentoo svn
> - schedule for getting remaining issues settled
Same question as last time this came up:
Can you name any other projects where the Counc
On Wed, Apr 4, 2007 at 22:27:45 +0200, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
> > I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
> > discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council power,
> > since it seems there is n
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I deliberately wrote the GLEP that way. The
> truth of the matter is that the Council has only whatever power the
> devs permit, so adding additional restrictions seems like a really bad
> idea to me.
grant++
Seriously, if enough de
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council power,
since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the metastructure
glep.
I'm not going to write an essay because I don't have the t
Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
> I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
> discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council power,
> since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the metastructure
> glep.
For what it's wort
On Sun, Apr 1, 2007 at 12:32:06 +0200, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1500 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe
On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> I compiled a list of things that i think need to be done such as
> defining some general guidelines for work,
sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the
work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to di
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 05:55:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> > Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
> > to throw in my 2 cents here.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> >
On Wednesday 04 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
> to throw in my 2 cents here.
>
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > -
Since i tried to get things running for the last week or two, i need
to throw in my 2 cents here.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > some topics off the top of my head:
> > - unaddressed CoC issue
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:51:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> some topics off the top of my head:
> - unaddressed CoC issues:
> - add a "mission" statement
> - fix wording to have a positive spin
> - what else ?
We need quite a few more people on the CoC team. One reason bein
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
