From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Em0Pd-0004a2-Aw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:01:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBD30OsV011107; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:00:24 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBD2wacb022624 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:58:37 GMT Received: from 82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.41.57.20] helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1Em0NA-00082t-Gm for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:58:36 +0000 Received: from localhost.home ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Em0N8-0007SW-OT for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:58:34 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:58:32 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process Message-ID: <20051213025832.50478861@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <200512131139.49116.jstubbs@gentoo.org> References: <200512131106.54567.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200512131115.43287.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20051213022442.537298bd@snowdrop.home> <200512131139.49116.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0-rc1 (GTK+ 2.8.8; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_VQHbVYQ9Fpkm0Dp=7nYrbTu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 19f37293-72ef-4cd8-8ac5-5a38280c3844 X-Archives-Hash: 25fa93b3041bbd900d5468438e50ed7c --Sig_VQHbVYQ9Fpkm0Dp=7nYrbTu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs wrote: | > So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP | > saying "move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure | > said documentation to this new format etc etc", and the QA group | > were in favour, and the developer community in general were in | > favour, and the council were in favour, and the people proposed by | > the GLEP to manage the new documentation were in favour, but the | > existing owners of the developer documentation were not, you're | > saying that it shouldn't be approved? |=20 | Yes. Unworkable. Your proposal would allow a small group of obstinate developers to hold back progress. The problem here is that the council isn't acting as a decent last line of quality control when the GLEP authors fail to do their jobs properly. Your GLEP is trying to solve the wrong thing... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Sig_VQHbVYQ9Fpkm0Dp=7nYrbTu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDnjja96zL6DUtXhERAok7AKDbzDg7GfqWGQTWhOLjkZArUXrHuQCgsbCB jFnk7V3BRoAb27VlOCKcTVE= =3BDi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_VQHbVYQ9Fpkm0Dp=7nYrbTu-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list