Re: [gentoo-project] Proposed GLEP 1 changes

[Chris Reffett]

On 12/14/2013 12:50 AM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As a member of the GLEP team, I would like to propose several
> updates to GLEP 1. I have attached the original and diffs for each of my
> proposed changes for reference, and I apologize in advance if any of the
> diffs cannot be applied simultaneously. Summaries and rationales for
> each change are as follows:
>
> 1. Remove the "current GLEP editor" list. I don't see a reason to update
> this every time the GLEP editor roster changes, and this can be found on
> the website/Wiki/other places.
>
> 2. Allow GLEPs to go to gentoo-project. In the year and a half I've been
> a dev, pretty much all GLEP-related discussion I've seen has stuck to
> the usual rule of technical stuff on -dev, non-technical on -project,
> despite GLEP 1 saying all GLEP discussion should go to -dev. This
> actually puts that rule into GLEP 1, saying that Standards Track GLEPs
> (which are for the most part technical in nature) go to -dev, and
> Informational (which are generally non-technical) go to -project.
>
> 3. Here's where we start changing workflow. I would like to be more open
> about the GLEP approval/rejection process, and that starts with the
> proposals. I would like to change from the format of "email glep@ ->
> only the submitter and the GLEP editors know of all of the proposals and
> rejection rationales" to a more transparent system, and that system will
> be bugzie. This change would have people submit prospective GLEPs on
> bugzilla, and the editors will discuss and approve/reject there. This
> also provides for suggesting major changes to GLEPs on bugzilla. This
> change would be supported by adding a GLEP product and "New GLEP" and
> "GLEP Update" components on bugzilla (though the specifics here can be
> flexible, if preferred it could go under Doc Other, for example).
> Alternatively, we can have people comment on the original GLEP bugs when
> they have changes (like how we handle new dev/retirement bugs), but I
> feel this method is better for compartmentalizing changes.
>
> 4. It is unclear in the current GLEP 1 wording whether changes need to
> go through the Council. Going from the example of the recent changes to
> GLEP 48 going through the council, this adds clarification by saying
> that anything that actually changes the meaning of the GLEP should go
> through the Council.
>
> 5. This removes GuideXML as a GLEP format. Currently, no GLEPs are in
> GuideXML format, and since we are migrating away from hosting project
> stuff on www.gentoo.org anyway there is no need to continue supporting
> GuideXML as an option. This particular change was suggested by a3li.
>
> 6. The other big workflow change, this would make the official storage
> of GLEPs move to the Wiki, under the GLEP: namespace, which would be
> restricted to GLEP editors (since, obviously, we don't want people
> messing around with the GLEPs). This also makes the official GLEP format
> change to Wiki markup from the current ReST format. If this one receives
> a generally positive consensus, I will present an updated GLEP 2 redone
> in Wiki markup to the Council along with these proposed changes, and
> would handle the conversion of existing GLEPs to Wiki markup.
> Alternatively, we could probably find a plugin for MediaWiki to handle
> pages in ReST format, and so not have to change the official format.
> Either is acceptable to me.
>
> I am definitely open to other approaches, so in addition to the usual
> criticisms of the proposal, please let me know if you can think of a
> more efficient workflow for the GLEP process. My goal is to make the
> GLEP process easy for everyone and as transparent as possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Reffett
>
A couple more changes:
6. Further edits: Changed the header section. Strip a lot of the
headers, most of the header stuff will be handled on the wiki in an
infobox/as metadata. The header will now just keep the bare minimum of
info, and that will all be input to the wiki by the GLEP editor.

7. This one was ulm's suggestion. Change required license from public
domain/OPL to CC-BY-SA 3.0 to be consistent with the wiki. Public domain
GLEPs will be relicensed as they are moved to the wiki (since the wiki
transition needs some reformatting done anyway, might as well, and
public domain means that we don't need author permission). OPL may stay
as they are since they require us to track the original authors down for
permission, but it is recommended that they be converted with authors'
consent.

Chris Reffett