From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2BNYwkY022442 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:34:58 GMT Received: from rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net ([200.44.33.4]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D9tej-0002od-Py for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:34:58 +0000 Received: from dC9F335CF.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net (dC9F335CF.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net [201.243.53.207]) by rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (8.13.0/8.13.0/3.0) with ESMTP id j2BNYv0O017398 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:34:57 -0400 X-Matched-Lists: [] Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by dC9F335CF.dslam-01-3-15-01-1-01.smg.dsl.cantv.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D9teh-0003WD-Jb for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:34:55 -0400 Message-ID: <42322B1F.3070202@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:34:55 -0400 From: "Luis F. Araujo" Organization: Gentoo inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050112) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP system worthwhile? References: <20050311143951.GA27199@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <4231BE29.2020408@gentoo.org> <20050311192526.GB30649@dst.grantgoodyear.org> In-Reply-To: <20050311192526.GB30649@dst.grantgoodyear.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.81, clamav-milter version 0.81b on rs25s3.datacenter.cha.cantv.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: 6c6b26e3-64bd-4bb4-b46d-b02c1d730852 X-Archives-Hash: 43b214be07281a6003e8eb1058460a60 Grant Goodyear wrote: >It's worth noting that a GLEP author need not be a dev, so those >people, of course, would always require a surrogate to submit/revise >GLEPs. As for devs being able to upload/revise GLEPs, I'm not opposed. >The reason that devs cannot update their own GLEPs right now is purely >technical: the GLEP page is part of the www tree, and that tree has >fairly strict permissions. If opening up the GLEP directory isn't too >much of a pita for infra, I certainly won't oppose it. I would still >prefer that GLEPs be run by one of the editors before being posted, >since we may be able to help, but I wouldn't insist on it. I would be >very sad, though, if people took advantage of a more liberal policy to >post poorly-thought-out junk. > > I agree with the GLEPs being run by one or several editors, i think it will keep the proposals very organized among them, something important for the whole glep.g.o structure. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list