1 |
Corey Shields wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 10:42:30PM CST] |
2 |
> Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority of the |
3 |
> council, write and propose a glep the day before a meeting and then push it |
4 |
> through. wow. sounds a lot like American politics. |
5 |
|
6 |
That's quite an indictment. You've skipped right past the notion that |
7 |
perhaps a mistake was made to accuse the Council of cronyism. As |
8 |
somebody who's been part of devrel, and thus the recipient of exactly |
9 |
that type of response more than once, I would think that you would have |
10 |
known (and done) better. |
11 |
|
12 |
Incidentally, the GLEP was originally revised and posted on glep.g.o on |
13 |
11 November before the 2000 UTC deadline to request being added to the |
14 |
agenda for the 15 Nov. meeting. When hparker updated the GLEP he made a |
15 |
rookie mistake, and forgot to update the Post-History field, so when I |
16 |
looked at the GLEP I assumed that it hadn't been updated. It's clear |
17 |
that the GLEP authors assumed that they just needed to incorporate the |
18 |
changes that the Council suggested, and that approval would be pro |
19 |
forma. In fact, they should have submitted the GLEP to -dev for another |
20 |
round of comments. Indeed, this GLEP reveals that there are a number of |
21 |
misconceptions in how the GLEP process is supposed to work. |
22 |
|
23 |
Here's what was supposed to happen. (Yes, it's my fault for not |
24 |
ensuring that it did, and I very much apologize.) After a GLEP is |
25 |
approved by the GLEP editor for posting to glep.g.o, the GLEP is sent to |
26 |
-dev for comments. Sane disputes should then be incorporated into a |
27 |
revision of the GLEP, where such disputes should be addressed and either |
28 |
incorporated or rejected with an explanation of why. There were, |
29 |
indeed, a number of disagreements with this GLEP when it was first |
30 |
released, and they are not at all documented in the GLEP. This process |
31 |
is iterated until some sort of steady state is reached, at which point |
32 |
the GLEP authors are supposed to tell the GLEP editor that they are |
33 |
ready for it to go up for approval. This step is actually fairly |
34 |
important, since the GLEP editor is responsible for determining who the |
35 |
"controlling authority" is for the GLEP. A full Council vote is only |
36 |
needed on GLEPs that are cross-project (or that lack a project). Both |
37 |
times that this GLEP went up for approval I should have been much more |
38 |
assertive in stating that this GLEP was not yet ready. (It's not the |
39 |
GLEP editor's place to prevent a GLEP from going up for approval, |
40 |
however. The assumption is that a not-yet-ready GLEP will simply be |
41 |
voted down.) |
42 |
|
43 |
In any event, mistakes happen. The real question is what to do next. |
44 |
This GLEP has been approved, for good or ill. Either the GLEP authors |
45 |
can offer a revision that incorporates the disputes that are coming up |
46 |
now (and that came up before but were never addressed), |
47 |
or somebody can write a new GLEP that would supersede this one, |
48 |
or people can just live with the current version. In any case, you have |
49 |
my apology for not doing a very good job with this one. |
50 |
|
51 |
-g2boojum- |
52 |
-- |
53 |
Grant Goodyear |
54 |
Gentoo Developer |
55 |
g2boojum@g.o |
56 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
57 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |