Looks good to me, but grammatically, it could use some fixing up.
I've made my changes below:

On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 14:52, dams@... wrote:
> ok, what about this :
> 
> 
> * Exploration phase  -  GOAL : describe and decide
> - throw a description here, verify validity
> - preliminary discussion here and/or irc
> - Optional : Prepare a prototype, testcase or a little code snippet    
> to let everybody play.
> - talk with the devs that are the most concerned with the issue, get additional
> information, ask if there is a good reason not to handle it, inform them that plan to
> address a GLEP
> - APPROVAL 1 : Is it worth pursuing this proposal? The result
> should be written to the mailing list and on the xml project page if  
> we decide to handle the case.
> 
> * Draft phase [strict deadline]  -  GOAL : have a GLEP draft
> - add new tasks : at least some time to research further (with a
>   milestone), and some time to find a solution (with milestone).
> - one of the task should be GLEP writing. Possibly one people should
> take care that the draft is conforming to GLEP standard
> - assign people to the task, set up deadlines. People assigned should include
> as most as possible external devs that are concerned by the issue, so that the
> GLEP get discussed.
> - all this should be well written in the xml project pages, and  
> should end with a new and shiny GLEP draft
> - APPROVAL 2 : do we all (at desktop-research + involved devs) agree on the
> draft?
> 
> * GLEP submission
> - we submit the GLEP to the responsible entity, so that they approve it, or not
> 
> 
> xml project pages precisions : their main goal is to organize the
> work, and archive what's been done. They should be the canva to the  
> GLEP and development production.
> 
> GLEP precision : should contain contain the key parts of the
> discussions from the discussion phase, problem identification (what is  
> the problem), problem acceptation (is this really a problem),
> problem exploration (what are the causes and possible solutions to  
> the problem) , proposed solution and the merits of this particular  
> solution. The latter of course from later discussions.
> 
> Decisions
> ---------
> We'll try to work together in a friendly manner, so no use to be
> strict for every points. Nevertheless, rules are still usefull for  
> extreme situations.
-- 
GnuGP key id# C1DBDF81 available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key Fingerprint = 2215 37C2 30EB B42D CC60  972E FC3C 749E C1DB DF81