[gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Jason Stubbs]

Abstract

The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall 
enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person 
rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.


Motivation

Recent GLEPs have attempted to force things on other teams. This just doesn't 
work.


Specification

Rather than coming to the ML with a completed GLEP and then asking for 
feedback, a GLEP author should look at the teams involved and then select a 
solicit a member from each team to be responsible for that area of the GLEP. 
The GLEP author may represent any teams they belong to.


Rationale

Rather than doing lots of hard work and having it thrown away once it is found 
to be unacceptable by the teams involved, the teams involved share the hard 
work and come up with something acceptable to everybody right from the 
outset.


Backwards Compatibility

Nothing


Reference Implementation

Just do it.


Copyright

Public Domain
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:06, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Abstract
>
> The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a
> single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
>
>
> Motivation
>
> Recent GLEPs have attempted to force things on other teams. This just
> doesn't work.
>
>
> Specification
>
> Rather than coming to the ML with a completed GLEP and then asking for
> feedback, a GLEP author should look at the teams involved and then select a
> solicit a member from each team to be responsible for that area of the
> GLEP. The GLEP author may represent any teams they belong to.

A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that each has 
given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without explicit approval 
of all teams involved cannot receive managerial approval.

> Rationale
>
> Rather than doing lots of hard work and having it thrown away once it is
> found to be unacceptable by the teams involved, the teams involved share
> the hard work and come up with something acceptable to everybody right from
> the outset.
>
>
> Backwards Compatibility
>
> Nothing
>
>
> Reference Implementation
>
> Just do it.
>
>
> Copyright
>
> Public Domain
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
| each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
| explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
| approval.

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?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Dan Meltzer]

If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it
should be approved?

</devils advocate>

On 12/12/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
> | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
> | explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
> | approval.
>
> 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?
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
> | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
> | explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
> | approval.
>
> 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?

Yes.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 550 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:35:40 -0500 Dan Meltzer
<parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
| If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it
| should be approved?

Nope. I'm questioning the use of the word "involved".

After that, I'll probably question replacing a single author with a
committee. We don't want to end up designing things like Ada, after
all...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
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?
| 
| 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...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[George Shapovalov]

On Tuesday, 13. December 2005 03:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> After that, I'll probably question replacing a single author with a
> committee. We don't want to end up designing things like Ada, after
> all...
Hm, why not? It works, and wors well..

George

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Jason Stubbs]

On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
>
> 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?
> |
> | 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...

Wrong. I'll expand on the "Yes" now that I've got a few minutes... Actually, 
I'll turn that into a "No". I misread "the people proposed by the GLEP to 
manage the new documentation" in my rush to leave for work this morning. The 
existing owners don't matter to the GLEP. They can continue to maintain the 
existing documentation if they wish. If you didn't have new people to 
maintain the new documentation however...

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1757 bytes --]

Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST]
> The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by
> a single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.

You know, there's no reason that GLEPs need to be written by a single
person.  It's often true, though, that it is a single person's idea,
initially at least.

> Specification
> 
> Rather than coming to the ML with a completed GLEP and then asking for
> feedback, a GLEP author should look at the teams involved and then
> select a solicit a member from each team to be responsible for that
> area of the GLEP.  The GLEP author may represent any teams they belong
> to.

Throwing out the initial GLEP amounts to the same thing, in my opinion,
since any interested parties are urged to provide feedback, and ideally
the next revision will include that feedback, either to accept it or
reject it.

> Rationale
> 
> Rather than doing lots of hard work and having it thrown away once it
> is found to be unacceptable by the teams involved, the teams involved
> share the hard work and come up with something acceptable to everybody
> right from the outset.

Yes, of course, GLEP authors should talk to the folks who are likely to
be affected beforehand, but if they fail to do so then the GLEP process
is likely to be rather protracted for that GLEP.  I have to admit that I
have no problem with people doing hard work for little gain, if that's
what people want to do.  *Shrug*  

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 06:16, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST]
>
> > The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> > overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by
> > a single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
>
> You know, there's no reason that GLEPs need to be written by a single
> person.  It's often true, though, that it is a single person's idea,
> initially at least.

Definitely. Ideas usually are a single person's "eureka" even if it comes 
through discussion with others.

> > Specification
> >
> > Rather than coming to the ML with a completed GLEP and then asking for
> > feedback, a GLEP author should look at the teams involved and then
> > select a solicit a member from each team to be responsible for that
> > area of the GLEP.  The GLEP author may represent any teams they belong
> > to.
>
> Throwing out the initial GLEP amounts to the same thing, in my opinion,
> since any interested parties are urged to provide feedback, and ideally
> the next revision will include that feedback, either to accept it or
> reject it.

This is where it is falling down. The assumption is that somebody from each 
affected team happens to notice the post and have the time to reply before 
the GLEP goes too far. It also means that the goals and direction of the 
teams affected have no bearing on the initial revision of the GLEP. With the 
initial revision of the GLEP setting the direction in which it will head (or 
fizzle), the GLEP author is essentially handing tasks to various teams (which 
may conflict with their goals) if the initial revision draws enough support.

> > Rationale
> >
> > Rather than doing lots of hard work and having it thrown away once it
> > is found to be unacceptable by the teams involved, the teams involved
> > share the hard work and come up with something acceptable to everybody
> > right from the outset.
>
> Yes, of course, GLEP authors should talk to the folks who are likely to
> be affected beforehand, but if they fail to do so then the GLEP process
> is likely to be rather protracted for that GLEP.  I have to admit that I
> have no problem with people doing hard work for little gain, if that's
> what people want to do.  *Shrug*

Why go through all that stress? Given GLEP 41, how much effort should infra 
need to put into defending why the tasks initially set out by the GLEP author 
are impractical? Is a single email enough? Is a battle with the GLEP author 
required if the GLEP author disagrees? That's assuming of course that a 
response was quick enough. It's not only the GLEP authors whom are doing 
extra unnecessary work.

In addition as I missed out the signing off part from the inital post, should 
council members all be continually polling the lists for disagreement and 
marking it down in a notebook to be pulled out in time for when the GLEP is 
put to a vote? Or is it all just down to how convincingly the GLEP author 
speaks in the meeting where it is voted upon? Because there is no mechanism 
to ensure otherwise, the latter is inevitably the case.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list