1 |
On 12/18/2013 7:03 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:04 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." |
3 |
> <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> Some idea: it's not that obvious to me what's the process to become a |
5 |
>> GLEP editor, or to change the GLEP editors team if everyone is inactive |
6 |
>> (which I think either happened recently or was very close to it). |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> The GLEP team is just an ordinary project - anybody can |
9 |
> join/contribute. In fact, this is a great place for interested |
10 |
> non-devs to contribute as well, and I passed a long a list of |
11 |
> volunteers I solicited a few months ago to creffett (who seems to be |
12 |
> doing a great job). |
13 |
He did indeed send me such a list. Once all of these GLEP changes are |
14 |
taken care of, I will take some time to think of how people can help out |
15 |
and will be emailing those people who volunteered (and if anyone else, |
16 |
dev or not, is interested in helping, feel free to email glep@ and we |
17 |
can talk). |
18 |
|
19 |
> |
20 |
> Even though QA got some special attention recently this isn't some |
21 |
> kind of a trend - in general teams should be open for anybody to |
22 |
> participate in. QA just needed a bit more care (IMHO) since it has an |
23 |
> unusually high level of authority/responsibility. The GLEP team (like |
24 |
> every other project) doesn't have any special authority - they are |
25 |
> there to be caretakers, make recommendations, etc. |
26 |
I concur, the process is the same as any other: email the team and ask |
27 |
to join. I don't think this needs special consideration. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I think the question came up as to whether these non-substantive |
30 |
> changes really need Council approval. My personal feeling is that as |
31 |
> long as the changes are announced and there are no major objections |
32 |
> they should be able to stand without further approval. If somebody |
33 |
> questions whether a particular change is major vs minor they can |
34 |
> always stick it on the council agenda. However, it isn't a big deal |
35 |
> for the council to rubber-stamp minor changes either - we should be |
36 |
> reading this stuff anyway and it takes little time (it just creates |
37 |
> latency - unless we vote by bug as we did with the QA lead |
38 |
> confirmation which got done in less than a day). |
39 |
I suggested that as one of the patches, my personal preference is that |
40 |
any substantive changes (defined as any change to a GLEP that changes |
41 |
its meaning, so minor clarifications, formatting fixes, etc. excepted |
42 |
here) should be run by the council, since I can't imagine any time that |
43 |
a GLEP change would be time-critical and since GLEPs affect the whole |
44 |
project I would like to avoid any appearance of non-elected people (the |
45 |
glep@ team) making or deciding Gentoo policy. As with all of my |
46 |
suggested changes, if someone has a better idea, I would love to hear it. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Rich |
49 |
> |
50 |
Chris Reffett |