1 |
Dams, |
2 |
|
3 |
I have a few comments. I've added a few words to your |
4 |
writeup - they are marked with _underscores_ |
5 |
|
6 |
On 10/29/03 09:44:24, dams@×××.fr wrote: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I agree with GLEP integration. What about : |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> * Exploration phase - GOAL : describe and decide |
14 |
> - throw a description here, verify validity |
15 |
> - preliminary discussion here and/or irc |
16 |
> - Optional : Prepare a prototype, testcase or a little code snippet |
17 |
> to let everybody play. |
18 |
> *** we put it here, it should be done only if usefull, and should |
19 |
> not take time. A lot of problems won't be compatible with prototypes |
20 |
> *** |
21 |
> - APPROVAL 1 : does it worth it to handle it (see below). The result |
22 |
> should be written to the mailing list and on the xml project page if |
23 |
> we decide to handle the case. |
24 |
|
25 |
I definitely think the devs who are responsible or directly involved |
26 |
in whatever problem we're trying to tackle should be consulted during |
27 |
this phase. They may provide valuable insight on how *NOT* to address |
28 |
the problem, thereby perhaps shaving off unnecessary discussions. |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> * _Draft_ phase [strict deadline] - GOAL : have a GLEP _draft_ |
32 |
> - add new tasks : at least some time to research further (with a |
33 |
> milestone), and some time to find a solution (with milestone). |
34 |
> - one of the tak should be GLEP writing. Possibly one people should |
35 |
> take care that the _draft_ is conforming to GLEP standard |
36 |
> - assign people to the task, set up deadlines |
37 |
> - all this should be well written in the xml project pages, and |
38 |
> should end with a new and shiny GLEP _draft_ |
39 |
> - APPROVAL 2 (see below) |
40 |
> |
41 |
> xml project pages precisions : their main goal is to organize the |
42 |
> work, and archive what's been done. They should be the canva to the |
43 |
> GLEP and development production. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> GLEP precision : should contain contain the key parts of the |
46 |
> discussions of the discussion phase, problem identification (what is |
47 |
> the problem), problem acceptation (is this really a problem), |
48 |
> problem exploration (what are the causes and possible solutions to |
49 |
> the problem) , proposed solution and the merrits of this particular |
50 |
> solution. The latter of course from later discussions. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Decisions |
53 |
> --------- |
54 |
> We'll try to work together in a friendly manner, so no use to be |
55 |
> strict for every points. Nevertheless, rules are still usefull for |
56 |
> extreme situations. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> APPROVAL 1 : at the end of the Revision phase, we should try to come |
59 |
> to an agreement that we should handle the case. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> APPROVAL 2 : I think it'd good to warn people outside of |
62 |
> -desktop-research at this point, like leaders and other devs. They |
63 |
> should decide if they approve the GLEP. Maybe we should warn/inform |
64 |
> them before the GLEP |
65 |
|
66 |
To quote the GLEP draft itself: |
67 |
|
68 |
"GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a |
69 |
GLEP before submitting it for review. A GLEP that has not been |
70 |
discussed on gentoo-dev@g.o and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [7] |
71 |
will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended |
72 |
discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to |
73 |
keep the discussions efficient include setting up a specific forums |
74 |
thread for the topic, having the GLEP author accept private comments in |
75 |
the early design phases, etc. GLEP authors should use their discretion |
76 |
here." |
77 |
|
78 |
Hence, the above point that we should probably try to pull in the dev |
79 |
responsible of whatever it is we're trying to address in a GLEP, before |
80 |
moving to APPROVAL 1. |
81 |
|
82 |
Also, APPROVAL 2 is only *OUR* approval of the GLEP draft. The official |
83 |
GLEP approval is actually a third and separate approval and thus |
84 |
strictly speaking, is no longer in our hands alone. The GLEP will only |
85 |
be supported if we have included a wider audience in typing up the |
86 |
draft during PHASE2 and before APPROVAL 2. |
87 |
|
88 |
Good job! |
89 |
|
90 |
/Rune (ermo) |
91 |
|
92 |
-- |
93 |
gentoo-desktop-research@g.o mailing list |