| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP |
| 6 |
> | > saying "move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure |
| 7 |
> | > said documentation to this new format etc etc", and the QA group |
| 8 |
> | > were in favour, and the developer community in general were in |
| 9 |
> | > favour, and the council were in favour, and the people proposed by |
| 10 |
> | > the GLEP to manage the new documentation were in favour, but the |
| 11 |
> | > existing owners of the developer documentation were not, you're |
| 12 |
> | > saying that it shouldn't be approved? |
| 13 |
> | |
| 14 |
> | Yes. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Unworkable. Your proposal would allow a small group of obstinate |
| 17 |
> developers to hold back progress. The problem here is that the council |
| 18 |
> isn't acting as a decent last line of quality control when the GLEP |
| 19 |
> authors fail to do their jobs properly. Your GLEP is trying to solve |
| 20 |
> the wrong thing... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Wrong. I'll expand on the "Yes" now that I've got a few minutes... Actually, |
| 23 |
I'll turn that into a "No". I misread "the people proposed by the GLEP to |
| 24 |
manage the new documentation" in my rush to leave for work this morning. The |
| 25 |
existing owners don't matter to the GLEP. They can continue to maintain the |
| 26 |
existing documentation if they wish. If you didn't have new people to |
| 27 |
maintain the new documentation however... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives