1 |
Peter Volkov wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> ? ???, 17/06/2008 ? 09:48 +0200, Tiziano Müller ?????: |
4 |
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-glep.txt |
5 |
> |
6 |
> ?Your GLEP describes only two possible types: Technical and |
7 |
> Organizational. |
8 |
Yes. |
9 |
|
10 |
> At the same time type of your GLEP is informational. |
11 |
I can't use the new types since I have to write the GLEP in terms of the |
12 |
current GLEP system/types. |
13 |
|
14 |
> How |
15 |
> this could be? What happens with informational GLEPs? |
16 |
The current ones remain as they are. New ones should be one of the mentioned |
17 |
types. |
18 |
|
19 |
> |
20 |
> Why did you dropped motivation from the body while mentioning it in |
21 |
> workflow? |
22 |
There must be a motivation. But the motivation could also be made clear in |
23 |
the abstract. In other words: There must not be a separate |
24 |
section "motivation" to make the motivation clear. |
25 |
|
26 |
> ?What about previous copyright claim? |
27 |
What do you mean? (yes, in my proposal a "Credits" section is needed) |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
> Actually this is just a beginning of questions and generally it feels |
31 |
> this glep is not finished |
32 |
true, by intention. Just keep them coming. |
33 |
|
34 |
> and should borrow more ideas from the current |
35 |
> GLEP 1. It's even better to update GLEP 1 instead for writing new one... |
36 |
No. A GLEP should not be updated (besides trivial updates). That's one of |
37 |
the things I'm trying to make clear here. It's not good at all to have the |
38 |
GLEPs describing policies, they should only be used to propose/describe |
39 |
changes to our policies (example: even if some country's law system is |
40 |
based on the roman right you also don't get a copy of the roman right and a |
41 |
book with changes made to it if you want to look at the current right). |
42 |
In other words: GLEPs should only be patches or changesets. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |