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. |
5 |
|
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. |
9 |
|
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). |
13 |
|
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? |
22 |
|
23 |
I'm still planning to write a ReST to guide-xml conversion tool, but |
24 |
real life has been interfering a tad recently. |
25 |
|
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. |
31 |
|
32 |
Fair enough. Also, I think we should do away w/ the unnecessary |
33 |
distinction between Informational and Standards-Track GLEPS. |
34 |
|
35 |
> Of course, then comes the point, how and who gets to say whether a |
36 |
> particular proposal as minor/major? :) |
37 |
|
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. |
42 |
|
43 |
> This has spurred me to get things fixed up so that we can have a working |
44 |
> system to demonstrate. |
45 |
|
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. |
50 |
|
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. |
56 |
|
57 |
Once again, with hope that we can get this implemented, |
58 |
thoughts? |
59 |
comments? |
60 |
|
61 |
-g2boojum- |
62 |
-- |
63 |
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |