1 |
Rune Morling <gentoo@××.dk> said: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Dams, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I have a few comments. I've added a few words to your |
6 |
> writeup - they are marked with _underscores_ |
7 |
> |
8 |
> On 10/29/03 09:44:24, dams@×××.fr wrote: |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> I agree with GLEP integration. What about : |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> * Exploration phase - GOAL : describe and decide |
16 |
>> - throw a description here, verify validity |
17 |
>> - preliminary discussion here and/or irc |
18 |
>> - Optional : Prepare a prototype, testcase or a little code snippet |
19 |
>> to let everybody play. |
20 |
>> *** we put it here, it should be done only if usefull, and should |
21 |
>> not take time. A lot of problems won't be compatible with prototypes |
22 |
>> *** |
23 |
>> - APPROVAL 1 : does it worth it to handle it (see below). The result |
24 |
>> should be written to the mailing list and on the xml project page if |
25 |
>> we decide to handle the case. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I definitely think the devs who are responsible or directly involved |
28 |
> in whatever problem we're trying to tackle should be consulted during |
29 |
> this phase. They may provide valuable insight on how *NOT* to address |
30 |
> the problem, thereby perhaps shaving off unnecessary discussions. |
31 |
|
32 |
that's right. We should add something here. I'll add : - talk with the devs |
33 |
that are the most concern with the issue, get additional infos, ask if there is |
34 |
a good reason not to handle it, inform them that plan to address a GLEP |
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> * _Draft_ phase [strict deadline] - GOAL : have a GLEP _draft_ |
39 |
>> - add new tasks : at least some time to research further (with a |
40 |
>> milestone), and some time to find a solution (with milestone). |
41 |
>> - one of the tak should be GLEP writing. Possibly one people should |
42 |
>> take care that the _draft_ is conforming to GLEP standard |
43 |
>> - assign people to the task, set up deadlines |
44 |
>> - all this should be well written in the xml project pages, and |
45 |
>> should end with a new and shiny GLEP _draft_ |
46 |
>> - APPROVAL 2 (see below) |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>> xml project pages precisions : their main goal is to organize the |
49 |
>> work, and archive what's been done. They should be the canva to the |
50 |
>> GLEP and development production. |
51 |
>> |
52 |
>> GLEP precision : should contain contain the key parts of the |
53 |
>> discussions of the discussion phase, problem identification (what is |
54 |
>> the problem), problem acceptation (is this really a problem), |
55 |
>> problem exploration (what are the causes and possible solutions to |
56 |
>> the problem) , proposed solution and the merrits of this particular |
57 |
>> solution. The latter of course from later discussions. |
58 |
>> |
59 |
>> Decisions |
60 |
>> --------- |
61 |
>> We'll try to work together in a friendly manner, so no use to be |
62 |
>> strict for every points. Nevertheless, rules are still usefull for |
63 |
>> extreme situations. |
64 |
>> |
65 |
>> APPROVAL 1 : at the end of the Revision phase, we should try to come |
66 |
>> to an agreement that we should handle the case. |
67 |
>> |
68 |
>> APPROVAL 2 : I think it'd good to warn people outside of |
69 |
>> -desktop-research at this point, like leaders and other devs. They |
70 |
>> should decide if they approve the GLEP. Maybe we should warn/inform |
71 |
>> them before the GLEP |
72 |
> |
73 |
> To quote the GLEP draft itself: |
74 |
> |
75 |
> "GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a |
76 |
> GLEP before submitting it for review. A GLEP that has not been |
77 |
> discussed on gentoo-dev@g.o and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [7] |
78 |
> will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended |
79 |
> discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to |
80 |
> keep the discussions efficient include setting up a specific forums |
81 |
> thread for the topic, having the GLEP author accept private comments in |
82 |
> the early design phases, etc. GLEP authors should use their discretion |
83 |
> here." |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Hence, the above point that we should probably try to pull in the dev |
86 |
> responsible of whatever it is we're trying to address in a GLEP, before |
87 |
> moving to APPROVAL 1. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Also, APPROVAL 2 is only *OUR* approval of the GLEP draft. The official |
90 |
> GLEP approval is actually a third and separate approval and thus |
91 |
> strictly speaking, is no longer in our hands alone. The GLEP will only |
92 |
> be supported if we have included a wider audience in typing up the |
93 |
> draft during PHASE2 and before APPROVAL 2. |
94 |
|
95 |
ok I add this too. |
96 |
|
97 |
-- |
98 |
dams |
99 |
|
100 |
-- |
101 |
gentoo-desktop-research@g.o mailing list |