1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On 2008.06.05 01:00, ?ukasz Damentko wrote: |
7 |
>> Hi guys, |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be |
10 |
>> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008). |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Team, |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I don't want to nominate anyone who hasn't been nominated already. |
15 |
> I would like to address all the candidates who have or will accept |
16 |
> council nominations. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> 1. Please tell us how/if you plan to fix GLEP 39. (You may not consider |
19 |
> it broken) |
20 |
|
21 |
a) A GLEP 39 is a "proposal" to do/implement something and should not be |
22 |
used as a way to finally document something. So, if we want to fix it, we |
23 |
should write down a new GLEP replacing GLEP 39 and then write that |
24 |
information down where it belongs to: in proj/en/council (and/or the |
25 |
developer handbook) |
26 |
|
27 |
b) Reading GLEP 1 you'll see that there are only two types of |
28 |
GLEPs: "Standards Track" and "Informational". One is for technical stuff |
29 |
and the other for organizational, but: "Informational GLEPs do not |
30 |
necessarily represent a Gentoo Linux community |
31 |
consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore |
32 |
Informational GLEPs or follow their advice." |
33 |
|
34 |
So we either have to stop using GLEPs for such kind of "rules/definitions" |
35 |
OR redefine how GLEPs should be used properly for changing organizational |
36 |
processes. |
37 |
|
38 |
We should finally stop doing cosmetic changes or we will forever struggle |
39 |
with outside people who know our rules better than we and as a result waste |
40 |
our time and energy and block our processes. |
41 |
|
42 |
Cheers, |
43 |
Tiziano |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
-- |
47 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |