Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:39:13
Message-Id: 46059ce10512121835t64da3c71pb1155de7f098058c@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process by Ciaran McCreesh
1 If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it
2 should be approved?
3
4 </devils advocate>
5
6 On 12/12/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote:
7 > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
8 > wrote:
9 > | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
10 > | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
11 > | explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
12 > | approval.
13 >
14 > So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP saying
15 > "move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure said
16 > documentation to this new format etc etc", and the QA group were in
17 > favour, and the developer community in general were in favour, and the
18 > council were in favour, and the people proposed by the GLEP to manage
19 > the new documentation were in favour, but the existing owners of the
20 > developer documentation were not, you're saying that it shouldn't be
21 > approved?
22 >
23 > --
24 > Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
25 > Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
26 > Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
27 >
28 >
29 >
30
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>