Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:27:30
Message-Id: 20051213022442.537298bd@snowdrop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process by Jason Stubbs
1 On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
2 wrote:
3 | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
4 | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
5 | explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
6 | approval.
7
8 So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP saying
9 "move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure said
10 documentation to this new format etc etc", and the QA group were in
11 favour, and the developer community in general were in favour, and the
12 council were in favour, and the people proposed by the GLEP to manage
13 the new documentation were in favour, but the existing owners of the
14 developer documentation were not, you're saying that it shouldn't be
15 approved?
16
17 --
18 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
19 Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
20 Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>