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 1EmAv1-0006Ug-S3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:14:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBDEDV8K023309; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:13:31 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 jBDEBHj4006943 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:11:18 GMT Received: from jj039137.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([211.4.39.137] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1EmAs9-0004w2-4i for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:11:17 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 896AC201A48; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:42 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:11:42 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <200512131106.54567.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200512131139.49116.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20051213025832.50478861@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20051213025832.50478861@snowdrop.home> 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: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512132311.42426.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a8bdf438-857f-43e8-99f4-d67f9d5baa14 X-Archives-Hash: 887f52a8eddcf3f62411c5f34f3ced6e On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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? > | > | 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