1 |
Looks good to me, but grammatically, it could use some fixing up. |
2 |
I've made my changes below: |
3 |
|
4 |
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 14:52, dams@×××.fr wrote: |
5 |
> ok, what about this : |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> * Exploration phase - GOAL : describe and decide |
9 |
> - throw a description here, verify validity |
10 |
> - preliminary discussion here and/or irc |
11 |
> - Optional : Prepare a prototype, testcase or a little code snippet |
12 |
> to let everybody play. |
13 |
> - talk with the devs that are the most concerned with the issue, get additional |
14 |
> information, ask if there is a good reason not to handle it, inform them that plan to |
15 |
> address a GLEP |
16 |
> - APPROVAL 1 : Is it worth pursuing this proposal? The result |
17 |
> should be written to the mailing list and on the xml project page if |
18 |
> we decide to handle the case. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> * Draft phase [strict deadline] - GOAL : have a GLEP draft |
21 |
> - add new tasks : at least some time to research further (with a |
22 |
> milestone), and some time to find a solution (with milestone). |
23 |
> - one of the task should be GLEP writing. Possibly one people should |
24 |
> take care that the draft is conforming to GLEP standard |
25 |
> - assign people to the task, set up deadlines. People assigned should include |
26 |
> as most as possible external devs that are concerned by the issue, so that the |
27 |
> GLEP get discussed. |
28 |
> - all this should be well written in the xml project pages, and |
29 |
> should end with a new and shiny GLEP draft |
30 |
> - APPROVAL 2 : do we all (at desktop-research + involved devs) agree on the |
31 |
> draft? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> * GLEP submission |
34 |
> - we submit the GLEP to the responsible entity, so that they approve it, or not |
35 |
> |
36 |
> |
37 |
> xml project pages precisions : their main goal is to organize the |
38 |
> work, and archive what's been done. They should be the canva to the |
39 |
> GLEP and development production. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> GLEP precision : should contain contain the key parts of the |
42 |
> discussions from the discussion phase, problem identification (what is |
43 |
> the problem), problem acceptation (is this really a problem), |
44 |
> problem exploration (what are the causes and possible solutions to |
45 |
> the problem) , proposed solution and the merits of this particular |
46 |
> solution. The latter of course from later discussions. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Decisions |
49 |
> --------- |
50 |
> We'll try to work together in a friendly manner, so no use to be |
51 |
> strict for every points. Nevertheless, rules are still usefull for |
52 |
> extreme situations. |
53 |
-- |
54 |
GnuGP key id# C1DBDF81 available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
55 |
Key Fingerprint = 2215 37C2 30EB B42D CC60 972E FC3C 749E C1DB DF81 |