| 1 |
It's been a bit over a year and a half since glep.gentoo.org came |
| 2 |
online, and GLEPs became the standard method for proposing significant |
| 3 |
changes to Gentoo. I think it's time to assess what works, and what |
| 4 |
doesn't, about this system. To date 30 GLEPs have been approved by the |
| 5 |
GLEP editors that involve something other than the GLEP process itself. |
| 6 |
Six of those GLEPs have been marked "Final", meaning they have been |
| 7 |
successfully implemented. Seven more have been "Accepted", meaning |
| 8 |
that the idea in the GLEP has been approved, but the implementation has |
| 9 |
not yet been completed. Five are currently in "Draft" status, not yet |
| 10 |
having been submitted for approval. One has been rejected. Eleven |
| 11 |
GLEPs failed to get enough traction to be either approved or rejected, |
| 12 |
and are thus "deferred". Do these statistics mean that the program is |
| 13 |
working well, working poorly, or failed utterly? My personal opinion |
| 14 |
is that even with the substantial number of timed-out GLEPs, the |
| 15 |
program is still a modest success because these GLEPs provide a record |
| 16 |
of notable, generally well-written proposals, which is a vast |
| 17 |
improvement on seeing the same half-thought-out ideas appear on the |
| 18 |
mailing lists time and time again. On the other hand, one might well |
| 19 |
argue that fairly few substantial accomplishments have come about from |
| 20 |
GLEPs, so perhaps GLEPs just add another bureaucratic impediment. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thoughts / comments? I promise not to bite anyone's head off this time! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-g2boojum- |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 29 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 30 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives