| 1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 01:55:01PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> It's not quite true that the Council votes on GLEPs, but that's not |
| 3 |
> really germane to your overall point. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Oh, that was your point. Mea culpa. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Okay, to address that point, the way that the current system works is |
| 8 |
that a GLEP is sent to the GLEP editors, and assuming that it is not |
| 9 |
obviously going to be DOA it's generally added to the website. At that |
| 10 |
point, if they haven't already, the GLEP authors initiate a discussion |
| 11 |
on -dev that is supposed to be iterative. The authors are supposed to |
| 12 |
revise their proposal to account for comments and ideas from the |
| 13 |
community. When the authors feel it is ready, they ask for the GLEP to |
| 14 |
be approved. At that point the GLEP is sent to either a project lead |
| 15 |
(if it falls under a specific project) or the Council if it crosses |
| 16 |
project boundaries for approval. I assume that the only part of the |
| 17 |
process you would really wish to change is who does the approving, and |
| 18 |
perhaps removing the initial send-it-to-the-editors step. In reality, |
| 19 |
though, the approval process is rarely the rate-limiting step. In |
| 20 |
almost all cases, a stalled or failed GLEP either never gets sent for |
| 21 |
approval, or is approved but never gets implemented. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-g2boojum- |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 28 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 29 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives