Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>
To: gentoo-core@g.o, liquidx@g.o, drobbins@g.o, klieber@g.o, gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] A proposal about proposals
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:41:52
Message-Id: 1056912066.7906.54.camel@localhost
1 > I guess the real problem is that we don't have the GLEP system in place.
2 > We are probably still at odds into how painless GLEP would work.
3 > However, you bring up a good point here, which seems like a reasonable
4 > adjustment to the GLEP approval system.
6 Ayep. Actually, I think the new management proposal should simplify
7 things, since approval then ultimately lies in the hands of the manager
8 of whatever area the GLEP represents.
10 To date there have been essentially no complaints about the GLEP
11 proposal, but we're still lacking comments from "upper management"
12 (although I know that Seemant thinks it's a good idea).
14 Daniel,
15 Comments? Incidentally, I think we need to amend the proposal to
16 permit guide-xml as well as ReST for those people who are comfortable w/
17 guide-xml. (From a practical point of view, the management proposal
18 would have made a great GLEP, and I've added it as GLEP 4. If I can't
19 get the powers that be to use it, GLEPS are DOA.) All that said, I
20 don't know where GLEPs fall into the new management scheme; devrel,
21 perhaps?
23 I'm still planning to write a ReST to guide-xml conversion tool, but
24 real life has been interfering a tad recently.
26 > We can mark GLEPs with an "impact" rating. So for instance, something
27 > like auto updating the dev-list would be "minor impact" (or say a
28 > category addition like my last mail), then those can be implicitly
29 > approved after the consultation period (1 week) and have to be
30 > explicitly disapproved.
32 Fair enough. Also, I think we should do away w/ the unnecessary
33 distinction between Informational and Standards-Track GLEPS.
35 > Of course, then comes the point, how and who gets to say whether a
36 > particular proposal as minor/major? :)
38 Well, surely that's something to be debated as part of the GLEP.
39 Presumably the GLEP author assigns an expected impact, the editors can
40 change that impact (with the author's approval?), and the final impact
41 rating can be altered during the GLEPs discussion.
43 > This has spurred me to get things fixed up so that we can have a working
44 > system to demonstrate.
46 Alistair,
47 We really need to have at least two editors. Care to formally
48 volunteer for the job? If so, please ask klieber to give you cvs
49 permissions for the GLEP site.
51 From the e-mails I've seen recently, users really seem to like the idea
52 of GLEPs because they feel it gives them more "ownership" of Gentoo. At
53 the same time, I think it should help to satisfy mcummings complaint
54 that we talk about changes, but nobody ever implements them. GLEPs
55 document that process in some detail.
57 Once again, with hope that we can get this implemented,
58 thoughts?
61 -g2boojum-
62 --
63 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature