From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2BLSEQD003868 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:28:14 GMT Received: from ctb-mesg2.saix.net ([196.25.240.74]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D9rg5-0007UL-St for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:28:14 +0000 Received: from gateway.lan (wblv-146-195-166.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.195.166]) by ctb-mesg2.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A018B6D46 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:28:12 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AACC3A26DB for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:33:12 +0200 (SAST) Received: from gateway.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gateway.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25735-01 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:33:06 +0200 (SAST) Received: from nosferatu.lan (nosferatu.lan [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher IDEA-CBC-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986A73A26DA for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:33:06 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP system worthwhile? From: Martin Schlemmer To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <42320696.7030404@gentoo.org> References: <20050311143951.GA27199@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <4231BE29.2020408@gentoo.org> <20050311192526.GB30649@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <42320696.7030404@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-e86F/k0m0qeoik9UIPLP" Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:31:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1110576673.8513.3.camel@nosferatu.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at nosferatu.za.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 868a35f1-e6c0-4f6b-b991-5a86dcb63c13 X-Archives-Hash: 068de57f325933a093f3748397872fee --=-e86F/k0m0qeoik9UIPLP Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:59 +0000, Ian Leitch wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 Given, but there should be a cutoff point I think ... 3-5 tries is OK, but 20 .... --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa --=-e86F/k0m0qeoik9UIPLP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCMg4hqburzKaJYLYRAs+ZAJ4t+qG0/qmKxBrr4T+j8QNMwceCXQCgg152 SKnoh7Gy8qNa8evan7wkz1o= =5nXK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-e86F/k0m0qeoik9UIPLP-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list