| 1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 2008.06.05 01:00, ?ukasz Damentko wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Hi guys, |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be |
| 10 |
>> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Team, |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I don't want to nominate anyone who hasn't been nominated already. |
| 15 |
> I would like to address all the candidates who have or will accept |
| 16 |
> council nominations. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1. Please tell us how/if you plan to fix GLEP 39. (You may not consider |
| 19 |
> it broken) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
a) A GLEP 39 is a "proposal" to do/implement something and should not be |
| 22 |
used as a way to finally document something. So, if we want to fix it, we |
| 23 |
should write down a new GLEP replacing GLEP 39 and then write that |
| 24 |
information down where it belongs to: in proj/en/council (and/or the |
| 25 |
developer handbook) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
b) Reading GLEP 1 you'll see that there are only two types of |
| 28 |
GLEPs: "Standards Track" and "Informational". One is for technical stuff |
| 29 |
and the other for organizational, but: "Informational GLEPs do not |
| 30 |
necessarily represent a Gentoo Linux community |
| 31 |
consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore |
| 32 |
Informational GLEPs or follow their advice." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So we either have to stop using GLEPs for such kind of "rules/definitions" |
| 35 |
OR redefine how GLEPs should be used properly for changing organizational |
| 36 |
processes. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
We should finally stop doing cosmetic changes or we will forever struggle |
| 39 |
with outside people who know our rules better than we and as a result waste |
| 40 |
our time and energy and block our processes. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Cheers, |
| 43 |
Tiziano |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives