[gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2683 bytes --]

the first GLEP is listed as Active, yet its information is out of date.  it
talks about GLEP editors and Gentoo Managers, neither of which exist anymore. 
basically, it still refers to the old management structure and not the
Council.  so rather than confuse people (since we explicitly quiz people on
this), how about this update:

--- glep-0001.txt	5 Jun 2008 06:05:32 -0000	1.12
+++ glep-0001.txt	9 Mar 2011 22:18:07 -0000
@@ -98,21 +98,20 @@ the form of code, patch, or URL to same 
 
 GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a GLEP
 before submitting it for review.  A GLEP that has not been discussed on
-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
+gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
 accepted.  However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public
 mailing lists should be avoided.  Strategies to keep the discussions efficient
 include setting up a specific forums thread for the topic, having the GLEP
 author accept private comments in the early design phases, etc.  GLEP authors
 should use their discretion here.
 
-Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the GLEP editors that
-it is ready for review.  GLEPs are reviewed by the appropriate Gentoo
-Manager [#MANAGER]_, who may approve or reject a GLEP outright, or
-send it back to the author(s) for revision.  For a GLEP that is pre-determined
-to be approvable (e.g., it is an obvious win as-is and/or its implementation
-has already been checked in) the appropriate Gentoo Manager [#MANAGER]_
-may also initiate a GLEP review, first notifying the GLEP author(s) and giving
-them a chance to make revisions.
+Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the Gentoo Council
+[#COUNCIL]_ that it is ready for review by way of the gentoo-dev mailing
+list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where it may be approved
+or rejected outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.  This
+generally should be done a few weeks in advance of the actual review so as to
+avoid the appearance of "slipping" a GLEP in without proper public review
+by the Gentoo developer community.
 
 For a GLEP to be approved it must meet certain minimum criteria.  It must be a
 clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement.  The enhancement
@@ -338,7 +337,7 @@ References and Footnotes
 
 .. [#FORUMS] http://forums.gentoo.org
 
-.. [#MANAGER] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/management-structure.xml
+.. [#COUNCIL] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html
 
 .. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
 
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]

On 03/10/2011 12:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the first GLEP is listed as Active, yet its information is out of date.  it
> talks about GLEP editors and Gentoo Managers, neither of which exist anymore. 
> basically, it still refers to the old management structure and not the
> Council.  so rather than confuse people (since we explicitly quiz people on
> this), how about this update:
> 
> --- glep-0001.txt	5 Jun 2008 06:05:32 -0000	1.12
> +++ glep-0001.txt	9 Mar 2011 22:18:07 -0000
> @@ -98,21 +98,20 @@ the form of code, patch, or URL to same 
>  
>  GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a GLEP
>  before submitting it for review.  A GLEP that has not been discussed on
> -gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
> +gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
>  accepted.  However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public
>  mailing lists should be avoided.  Strategies to keep the discussions efficient
>  include setting up a specific forums thread for the topic, having the GLEP
>  author accept private comments in the early design phases, etc.  GLEP authors
>  should use their discretion here.
>  

Have GLEPs in practice been sent to the forums? I think this requirement
could be dropped and just have a single place for discussion.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Rich Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

On Mar 9, 2011 5:45 PM, "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Have GLEPs in practice been sent to the forums? I think this requirement
> could be dropped and just have a single place for discussion.

It says either is fine, so I wouldn't call it a requirement.

However, a GLEP update warrants at least one post to -dev-announce
regardless of where it is discussed. Discussion might be more appropriate on
-project depending on topic...

Rich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 562 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 644 bytes --]

On Wednesday, March 09, 2011 17:43:49 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 12:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >  before submitting it for review.  A GLEP that has not been discussed on
> > -gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not
> > +gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not
> 
> Have GLEPs in practice been sent to the forums? I think this requirement
> could be dropped and just have a single place for discussion.

the intention was to not let people pick only the forums (which is clearly 
wrong).  i'll tweak it to allow *additional* feedback via the forums.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3435 bytes --]

tweaked the forums note a bit more to make clear that it is an optional
(additional) channel of communication only and does not replace g-dev

--- glep-0001.txt	5 Jun 2008 06:05:32 -0000	1.12
+++ glep-0001.txt	10 Mar 2011 00:09:46 -0000
@@ -85,10 +85,10 @@ gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list to he
 consensus from the community at large, and improve the GLEP for re-submission.
 
 The author of the GLEP is then responsible for posting the GLEP to the
-gentoo-dev mailing list and to the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_, and
-marshaling community support for it.  As updates are necessary, the GLEP
-author can check in new versions if they have CVS commit permissions, or can
-email new GLEP versions to the GLEP editors for committing.
+gentoo-dev mailing list (and additionally to the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_
+if they so desire), and marshaling community support for it.  As updates are
+necessary, the GLEP author may check in new versions directly, or forward to
+a Gentoo developer with commit access.
 
 Standards Track GLEPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference
 implementation.  The GLEP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference
@@ -98,21 +98,20 @@ the form of code, patch, or URL to same 
 
 GLEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a GLEP
 before submitting it for review.  A GLEP that has not been discussed on
-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and/or the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
+gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
 accepted.  However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public
 mailing lists should be avoided.  Strategies to keep the discussions efficient
 include setting up a specific forums thread for the topic, having the GLEP
 author accept private comments in the early design phases, etc.  GLEP authors
 should use their discretion here.
 
-Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the GLEP editors that
-it is ready for review.  GLEPs are reviewed by the appropriate Gentoo
-Manager [#MANAGER]_, who may approve or reject a GLEP outright, or
-send it back to the author(s) for revision.  For a GLEP that is pre-determined
-to be approvable (e.g., it is an obvious win as-is and/or its implementation
-has already been checked in) the appropriate Gentoo Manager [#MANAGER]_
-may also initiate a GLEP review, first notifying the GLEP author(s) and giving
-them a chance to make revisions.
+Once the authors have completed a GLEP, they must inform the Gentoo Council
+[#COUNCIL]_ that it is ready for review by way of the gentoo-dev mailing
+list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where it may be approved
+or rejected outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.  This
+generally should be done a few weeks in advance of the actual review so as to
+avoid the appearance of "slipping" a GLEP in without proper public review
+by the Gentoo developer community.
 
 For a GLEP to be approved it must meet certain minimum criteria.  It must be a
 clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement.  The enhancement
@@ -338,7 +337,7 @@ References and Footnotes
 
 .. [#FORUMS] http://forums.gentoo.org
 
-.. [#MANAGER] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/management-structure.xml
+.. [#COUNCIL] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html
 
 .. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Patrick Börjesson]

On 2011-03-09 19:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> +list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where it may be approved
> +or rejected outright, or send it back to the author(s) for revision.  This

Just a minor note; The sentence is written from the perspective of the
GLEP, so the last part should probably be ", or sent back to the
author(s) for revision".

Re: [gentoo-dev] updating GLEP 1

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

On Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:28:59 Patrick Börjesson wrote:
> On 2011-03-09 19:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > +list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where it may be
> > approved +or rejected outright, or send it back to the author(s) for
> > revision.  This
> 
> Just a minor note; The sentence is written from the perspective of the
> GLEP, so the last part should probably be ", or sent back to the
> author(s) for revision".

thanks.  ive tweaked that and committed the result now.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]