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

[Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>]

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