1 |
the first GLEP is listed as Active, yet its information is out of date. it |
2 |
talks about GLEP editors and Gentoo Managers, neither of which exist anymore. |
3 |
basically, it still refers to the old management structure and not the |
4 |
Council. so rather than confuse people (since we explicitly quiz people on |
5 |
this), how about this update: |
6 |
|
7 |
--- glep-0001.txt 5 Jun 2008 06:05:32 -0000 1.12 |
8 |
+++ glep-0001.txt 9 Mar 2011 22:18:07 -0000 |
9 |
@@ -98,21 +98,20 @@ the form of code, patch, or URL to same |
10 |
|
11 |
GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a GLEP |
12 |
before submitting it for review. A GLEP that has not been discussed on |
13 |
-gentoo-dev@g.o and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be |
14 |
+gentoo-dev@g.o and the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be |
15 |
accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public |
16 |
mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient |
17 |
include setting up a specific forums thread for the topic, having the GLEP |
18 |
author accept private comments in the early design phases, etc. GLEP authors |
19 |
should use their discretion here. |
20 |
|
21 |
-Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the GLEP editors that |
22 |
-it is ready for review. GLEPs are reviewed by the appropriate Gentoo |
23 |
-Manager [#MANAGER]_, who may approve or reject a GLEP outright, or |
24 |
-send it back to the author(s) for revision. For a GLEP that is pre-determined |
25 |
-to be approvable (e.g., it is an obvious win as-is and/or its implementation |
26 |
-has already been checked in) the appropriate Gentoo Manager [#MANAGER]_ |
27 |
-may also initiate a GLEP review, first notifying the GLEP author(s) and giving |
28 |
-them a chance to make revisions. |
29 |
+Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the Gentoo Council |
30 |
+[#COUNCIL]_ that it is ready for review by way of the gentoo-dev mailing |
31 |
+list. GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where it may be approved |
32 |
+or rejected outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision. This |
33 |
+generally should be done a few weeks in advance of the actual review so as to |
34 |
+avoid the appearance of "slipping" a GLEP in without proper public review |
35 |
+by the Gentoo developer community. |
36 |
|
37 |
For a GLEP to be approved it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a |
38 |
clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement |
39 |
@@ -338,7 +337,7 @@ References and Footnotes |
40 |
|
41 |
.. [#FORUMS] http://forums.gentoo.org |
42 |
|
43 |
-.. [#MANAGER] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/management-structure.xml |
44 |
+.. [#COUNCIL] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html |
45 |
|
46 |
.. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ |
47 |
|
48 |
-mike |