On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:59 +0000, Ian Leitch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Grant Goodyear wrote:

> | It's worth noting that a GLEP author need not be a dev, so those
> | people, of course, would always require a surrogate to submit/revise
> | GLEPs.  As for devs being able to upload/revise GLEPs, I'm not opposed.
> | The reason that devs cannot update their own GLEPs right now is purely
> | technical: the GLEP page is part of the www tree, and that tree has
> | fairly strict permissions.  If opening up the GLEP directory isn't too
> | much of a pita for infra, I certainly won't oppose it.  I would still
> | prefer that GLEPs be run by one of the editors before being posted,
> | since we may be able to help, but I wouldn't insist on it.  I would be
> | very sad, though, if people took advantage of a more liberal policy to
> | post poorly-thought-out junk.
> 
> If someone posts a poorly thought out GLEP then people will vote against
> it. If the author wishes, he/she can post a revised version and the
> voting process beings again. It's up to the author to make sure their
> idea is of decent quality first time round, unless they want to spend
> hours revising it.
> 

Given, but there should be a cutoff point I think ... 3-5 tries is OK,
but 20 ....


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa