| 1 |
* Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On 01/26/2011 08:50 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 1/26/11 3:33 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Meeting agenda: |
| 5 |
> >> * GLEP 48 (QA) |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> I think we should apply the same rules to GLEP changes as to new GLEPs. |
| 8 |
> Then we have this coming from GLEP 1: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> "GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a |
| 11 |
> GLEP before submitting it for review. A GLEP that has not been discussed |
| 12 |
> on gentoo-dev@g.o and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [7] will not be |
| 13 |
> accepted" |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> As the GLEP predates gentoo-project I think this mailing list is proper |
| 16 |
> too. Paweł's comment shows that just a gentoo-qa mailing will not get |
| 17 |
> you enough exposure to ensure the wider community has had a chance to |
| 18 |
> comment on the changes. For this reason I think the item should be |
| 19 |
> postponed to the next meeting. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I agree. Let's give the community a chance to comment. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I also see the downside of the GLEP process: |
| 24 |
If you run "Developer Relations" - a project not being backed up by a |
| 25 |
GLEP - you can change the policy as you like and don't have to ask for |
| 26 |
feedback from the community at all [1]. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I hope we can agree that feedback is good -- required by the GLEP |
| 29 |
process or not. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/54639 |
Archives