| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:59 +0000, Ian Leitch wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> | It's worth noting that a GLEP author need not be a dev, so those |
| 8 |
> | people, of course, would always require a surrogate to submit/revise |
| 9 |
> | GLEPs. As for devs being able to upload/revise GLEPs, I'm not opposed. |
| 10 |
> | The reason that devs cannot update their own GLEPs right now is purely |
| 11 |
> | technical: the GLEP page is part of the www tree, and that tree has |
| 12 |
> | fairly strict permissions. If opening up the GLEP directory isn't too |
| 13 |
> | much of a pita for infra, I certainly won't oppose it. I would still |
| 14 |
> | prefer that GLEPs be run by one of the editors before being posted, |
| 15 |
> | since we may be able to help, but I wouldn't insist on it. I would be |
| 16 |
> | very sad, though, if people took advantage of a more liberal policy to |
| 17 |
> | post poorly-thought-out junk. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If someone posts a poorly thought out GLEP then people will vote against |
| 20 |
> it. If the author wishes, he/she can post a revised version and the |
| 21 |
> voting process beings again. It's up to the author to make sure their |
| 22 |
> idea is of decent quality first time round, unless they want to spend |
| 23 |
> hours revising it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Given, but there should be a cutoff point I think ... 3-5 tries is OK, |
| 27 |
but 20 .... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 33 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives