Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 12:25:53
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status by "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> You are deviating the topic here. Informative GLEPs:
It is "Informational" not "Informative".
> * Are enforced. > * Are accepted as a valid argument without trying to check whether > their contents still apply (and no that doesn't mean that it is not > marked as Replaced, Moribund or Deferred, it means that their > contents are actual and relevant).
Maybe this applies to GLEP 39. That is an exceptional case though, because it hasn't followed the normal GLEP process, but was accepted by a vote of all developers. The GLEP format was only chosen because it was a convenient means to publish it (and I guess also because its predecessor had been published as GLEP 4).
> If you want to document the current lifecycle of Gentoo Developers it's > a better idea to, for example, go and update the Developer Handbook > > Because anything that is stated in a GLEP will be enforced even if > said GLEP is "informative".
> Having second class contributors isn't either and that is exactly > what this GLEP proposes.
Do you really read it in that way? We previously had a distinction between developers who could commit to the gentoo-x86 repository and staffers who could not, but IIUC this has largely been dropped. I don't think the intention of mgorny's pre-GLEP is to reinstate that distinction. Ulrich