| 1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:22:07PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT] |
| 3 |
> > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it |
| 4 |
> > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy |
| 5 |
> > with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I disagree, but only very slightly. I never expected everybody to be |
| 8 |
> happy before a GLEP is voted upon, but a GLEP should address areas of |
| 9 |
> controversy and either incorporate the new ideas or explain why the |
| 10 |
> authors do not wish to do so. In this way the folks voting on the GLEP |
| 11 |
> are able to make a more informed decision. See GLEP 40 for an example. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I should add that the iterative process, however, _is_ exactly what I |
| 14 |
envisioned. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-g2boojum- |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 19 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 20 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 21 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 22 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives