[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is
the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
agenda to discuss or vote on.

Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday
2014-01-07.

Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14

[Chris Reffett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2678 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/04/2014 02:46 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This
> is the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put
> on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously 
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 
> 2014-01-07.
> 
> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
I ask that the council vote on my proposed changes to GLEP 1 and 2,
discussion is at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3211 and
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3213. I have
re-attached the patches here for convenience; the long rationales for
each patch can be found in the first link, but here's a quick summary
of each:

1. Remove the names of "Current GLEP Editors"

2. Allow non-technical GLEP discussion to be on gentoo-project (since
we do that anyway)

3. Workflow change: move GLEP submission and modification to bugzilla
instead of emailing only to glep@.

4. Clarification of what changes should go to Council (this wording
has any changes which affect the meaning of the GLEP go through
council, nobody objected to that)

5. Remove GuideXML as a GLEP format. None use it right now.

6. Workflow change: move GLEP storage to the Wiki, significantly
changing the formatting and headers of GLEPs. If this is approved,
please also consider and approve the changes to GLEP 2 found at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Creffett/GLEP2 (see below).

7. Change the copyright from OPL/public domain to CC-BY-SA 3.0 to be
compatible with the wiki. Allows the few existing OPL GLEPs to stay
as-is but strongly encourages a relicense with author consent.


Going with item 6, I also have a couple of drafts of how the
Wiki-format GLEPs would look.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Creffett/GLEP2 is a full conversion
of GLEP 2 to Wiki markup and changes the GLEP's formatting
explanations to reflect Wiki markup instead of ReST. a3li has also
added a demonstration of the GLEP namespace at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:1.

Chris Reffett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iKYEARECAGYFAlLIafxfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM2NzU5RjUyMDczREJDQkVDQTBDRkE1NERC
Nzk1QThBNDI2MTgzNTQACgkQ23laikJhg1RvQwCfQ8nOi/dulinBCCDQ9CAwZHU0
AlsAoKVaxhlc/KvKtF8NxfN5e9/CcJQV
=/t3Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: glep-0001.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 15696 bytes --]

GLEP: 1
Title: GLEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision: 1.14 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2013/06/12 00:40:24 $
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 31-May-2003
Post-History: 1-Jun-2003, 2-Jul-2003, 19-Jan-2008, 05-Jun-2008, 09-Mar-2011

Credits
=======

The GLEP concept, and, in fact, much of the text of this document,
is liberally stolen from Python's [#Python]_ PEPs
[#PEPS]_, especially
PEP-0001 [#PEP1]_ by Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger.

What is a GLEP?
===============

GLEP stands for "Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposal".  A GLEP is a design
document providing information to the Gentoo Linux community, or describing
a new feature for Gentoo Linux.  The GLEP should provide a concise technical
specification of the feature and rationale for the feature.

We intend GLEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing *significant* new
features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
documenting the design decisions that have gone into Gentoo Linux.  The GLEP
author is responsible for building consensus within the community and
documenting dissenting opinions.

Because the GLEPs are maintained as text files under CVS control, their
revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal
[#CVS]_.


Kinds of GLEPs
==============

There are two kinds of GLEPs.  A Standards Track GLEP describes a new feature
or implementation for Gentoo Linux.  An Informational GLEP describes provides
general guidelines or information to the Gentoo Linux community, but does not
propose a new feature.  Informational GLEPs do not necessarily represent a
Gentoo Linux community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
are free to ignore Informational GLEPs or follow their advice.


GLEP Work Flow
==============

The GLEP editors assign GLEP numbers and change their status.  The current
GLEP editors are Grant Goodyear and Alastair Tse.  Please send all
GLEP-related email to <glep@gentoo.org>.

The GLEP process begins with a new idea for Gentoo Linux.  It is highly
recommended that a single GLEP contain a single key proposal or new idea.  The
more focused the GLEP, the more successful it tends to be.  The GLEP editors
reserve the right to reject GLEP proposals if they appear too unfocused or
too broad.  If in doubt, split your GLEP into several well-focused ones.

Each GLEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the GLEP using the style
and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate
forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea.  The GLEP
champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is
GLEP-able.  Small enhancements or patches often don't need a GLEP and can be
injected into the Gentoo Linux development work flow with an enhancement "bug"
submitted to the Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_.

The GLEP champion then emails the GLEP editors <glep@gentoo.org> with a
proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the GLEP.  This draft
must be written in GLEP style as described below.

If the GLEP editor accepts the GLEP, he will assign the GLEP a number, label
it as Standards Track (a better name would be nice here -- suggestions?) or
Informational, give it status "Draft", and create and check-in the initial
draft of the GLEP.  The GLEP editors will not unreasonably deny a GLEP.
Reasons for denying GLEP status include duplication of effort, being
technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
compatibility, or not in keeping with Gentoo Linux philosophy.  

If a pre-GLEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-GLEP to the
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list to help flesh it out, gain feedback and
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 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
implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in
studying the GLEP.  Standards Track GLEPs must include an implementation -- in
the form of code, patch, or URL to same -- before it can be considered Final.

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 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 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 the may be approved
or rejected outright, or sent 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
must represent a net improvement.  The proposed implementation, if applicable,
must be solid and must not complicate the distribution unduly.  Finally, a
proposed enhancement must satisfy the philosophy of Gentoo Linux.

Once a GLEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed.
When the reference implementation is complete and accepted, the status will be
changed to "Final".

A GLEP can also be assigned status "Deferred".  The GLEP author or editor can
assign the GLEP this status when no progress is being made on the GLEP.  Once
a GLEP is deferred, the GLEP editor can re-assign it to draft status.

A GLEP can also be "Rejected".  Perhaps after all is said and done it was not
a good idea.  It is still important to have a record of this fact.

GLEPs can also be replaced by a different GLEP, rendering the original
obsolete (where version 2 of a policy, for example, might replace version 1).

GLEP work flow is as follows::

    Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
      ^
      +----> Rejected
      v
    Deferred

Some Informational GLEPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never
meant to be completed.  E.g. GLEP 1 (this GLEP).


What belongs in a successful GLEP?
==================================

Each GLEP should have the following parts:

1. Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing meta-data about the
   GLEP, including the GLEP number, a short descriptive title (limited
   to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the
   contact info for each author, etc.

2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue
   being addressed.

3. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for GLEPs that want to
   modify Gentoo Linux functionality.  It should clearly explain why the
   existing functionality or policy is inadequate to address the problem that
   the GLEP solves.  GLEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be
   rejected outright.

4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe the
   specific areas of Gentoo Linux that would be touched by this GLEP.  If new
   functionality is being introduced, what packages will that functionality
   affect?  If new policy, who will be affected?

5. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
   describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions
   were made.  It should describe alternate designs that were considered and
   related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other distributions.

   The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and
   discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.

6. Backwards Compatibility -- All GLEPs 
   must include a section describing any issues of backwards incompatibilities
   and their severity.  The GLEP must explain how the author proposes to deal
   with these incompatibilities.  (Even if there are none, this section should
   be included to clearly state that fact.) GLEP submissions without a
   sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.

7. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be
   completed before any GLEP is given status "Final", but it need not be
   completed before the GLEP is accepted.  It is better to finish the
   specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing
   code or significantly modifying ebuilds.

8. Copyright/public domain -- Each GLEP must either be explicitly
   labelled as placed in the public domain (see this GLEP as an example) or
   licensed under the Open Publication License [#OPL].


GLEP Formating and Template
===========================

GLEPs are written either in Gentoo Linux Guide-XML [#GUIDEXML]_ or in
a just-barely-marked-up version of plain ASCII text
called ReStructuredText [#ReSTHOME]_ that is then converted to HTML using
Docutils [#DOCUTILS]_.  Using ReStructuredText GLEPs allows for rich markup
that is still quite easy to read, but results in much better-looking and more
functional HTML.  Moreover, it should be straightforward to convert GLEPs to
Gentoo Linux guide xml [#GUIDEXML]_ if needed.  GLEP 2 contains a boilerplate
template [#ReST]_ for use with ReStructuredText GLEPs.


GLEP Header Preamble
====================

Each GLEP must begin with an RFC 2822 style header preamble.  The headers
must appear in the following order.  Headers marked with "*" are
optional and are described below.  All other headers are required. ::

    GLEP: <glep number>
    Title: <glep title>
    Version: <cvs version string>
    Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
    Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
  * Discussions-To: <email address>
    Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
             Final | Replaced>
    Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
  * Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
  * Requires: <glep numbers>
    Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev>
  * Replaces: <glep number>
  * Replaced-By: <glep number>

The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses
of all the authors/owners of the GLEP.  The format of the Author header
value must be

    Random J. User <address@dom.ain>

if the email address is included, and just

    Random J. User

if the address is not given.  

If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line
following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.  Note that personal
email addresses in GLEPs will be obscured as a defense against spam
harvesters.

While a GLEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft
phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where
the GLEP is being discussed.  No Discussions-To header is necessary if the
GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the gentoo-dev
mailing list.  Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To header will not
be obscured.

The Type header specifies the type of GLEP: Informational or Standards
Track.

The format of a GLEP is specified with a Content-Type header, which 
should read "text/xml" for Gentoo Guide XML or 
"text/x-rst" for ReStructuredText GLEPs (see GLEP 2
[#ReST]_).

The Created header records the date that the GLEP was assigned a number, while
Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the GLEP are
posted to gentoo-dev.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g.
14-Aug-2001.

GLEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the GLEP numbers that this GLEP
depends on.

GLEPs may also have a Replaced-By header indicating that a GLEP has been
rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the GLEP
that replaces the current document.  The newer GLEP must have a Replaces
header containing the number of the GLEP that it rendered obsolete.


Reporting GLEP Bugs, or Submitting GLEP Updates
===============================================

How you report a bug, or submit a GLEP update depends on several factors, such
as the maturity of the GLEP, the preferences of the GLEP author, and the
nature of your comments.  For the early draft stages of the GLEP, it's
probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the GLEP author.
For more mature, or finished GLEPs you may want to submit corrections to the
Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_ so that your changes don't get lost.  If the GLEP
author is a Gentoo Linux developer, assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise
assign it to the GLEP editors.

When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the
GLEP author and/or GLEP editors.

GLEP authors who are also Gentoo Linux developers can update the GLEPs
themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.  

Transferring GLEP Ownership
===========================

It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of GLEPs to a new
champion.  In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author
of the transferred GLEP, but that's really up to the original author.  A good
reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the
time or interest in updating it or following through with the GLEP process, or
has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to
email).  A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with
the direction of the GLEP.  We try to build consensus around a GLEP, but if
that's not possible, you can always submit a competing GLEP.

If you are interested in assuming ownership of a GLEP, send a message asking
to take over, addressed to both the original author and the GLEP editors
<glep@gentoo.org>.  If the original author doesn't respond to email in a
timely manner, the GLEP editors will make a unilateral decision (it's not like
such decisions can't be reversed :).


References and Footnotes
========================

.. [#PYTHON] http://www.python.org

.. [#PEPS] http://www.python.org/peps

.. [#PEP1] http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html

.. [#CVS] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
   for retrieving older revisions.  For those without direct access to the CVS
   tree, you can browse the current and past GLEP revisions via the Gentoo
   Linux viewcvs web site at
   http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/

.. [#ReST] GLEP 2, Sample ReStructuredText GLEP Template, 
   (http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0002.html)

.. [#BUGS] http://bugs.gentoo.org

.. [#FORUMS] http://forums.gentoo.org

.. [#COUNCIL] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

.. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/

.. [#ReSTHOME] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html

.. [#GUIDEXML] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml

.. [#DOCUTILS] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

[-- Attachment #3: glep-0001.txt.1.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.1	2013-12-13 23:23:27.188164895 -0500
@@ -50,8 +50,7 @@
 GLEP Work Flow
 ==============
 
-The GLEP editors assign GLEP numbers and change their status.  The current
-GLEP editors are Grant Goodyear and Alastair Tse.  Please send all
+The GLEP editors assign GLEP numbers and change their status. Please send all
 GLEP-related email to <glep@gentoo.org>.
 
 The GLEP process begins with a new idea for Gentoo Linux.  It is highly

[-- Attachment #4: glep-0001.txt.2.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3849 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.2	2013-12-13 23:32:53.190162835 -0500
@@ -81,14 +81,16 @@
 compatibility, or not in keeping with Gentoo Linux philosophy.  
 
 If a pre-GLEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-GLEP to the
-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list to help flesh it out, gain feedback and
-consensus from the community at large, and improve the GLEP for re-submission.
+gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list (for Standards Track GLEPs) or the
+gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list (for Informational GLEPs) to help flesh
+it out, gain feedback and 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 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.
+gentoo-dev or gentoo-project 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
@@ -98,7 +100,7 @@
 
 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 the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
+the mailing lists 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
@@ -106,7 +108,7 @@
 should use their discretion here.
 
 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
+[#COUNCIL]_ that it is ready for review by way of the appropriate mailing
 list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where the may be approved
 or rejected outright, or sent back to the author(s) for revision.  This
 generally should be done a few weeks in advance of the actual review so as to
@@ -227,7 +229,7 @@
   * Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
   * Requires: <glep numbers>
     Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
-    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev>
+    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev/gentoo-project>
   * Replaces: <glep number>
   * Replaced-By: <glep number>
 
@@ -251,7 +253,7 @@
 While a GLEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft
 phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where
 the GLEP is being discussed.  No Discussions-To header is necessary if the
-GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the gentoo-dev
+GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the appropriate
 mailing list.  Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To header will not
 be obscured.
 
@@ -265,8 +267,8 @@
 
 The Created header records the date that the GLEP was assigned a number, while
 Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the GLEP are
-posted to gentoo-dev.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g.
-14-Aug-2001.
+posted to gentoo-dev or gentoo-project.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy
+format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
 
 GLEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the GLEP numbers that this GLEP
 depends on.

[-- Attachment #5: glep-0001.txt.3.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6837 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.3	2013-12-13 23:45:14.254160138 -0500
@@ -68,9 +68,9 @@
 injected into the Gentoo Linux development work flow with an enhancement "bug"
 submitted to the Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_.
 
-The GLEP champion then emails the GLEP editors <glep@gentoo.org> with a
-proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the GLEP.  This draft
-must be written in GLEP style as described below.
+The GLEP champion then files a bug on bugzilla in the GLEP product, under the
+"New GLEP" component with a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft
+of the GLEP.  This draft must be written in GLEP style as described below.
 
 If the GLEP editor accepts the GLEP, he will assign the GLEP a number, label
 it as Standards Track (a better name would be nice here -- suggestions?) or
@@ -111,7 +111,8 @@
 or rejected outright, or sent 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.
+by the Gentoo developer community. Any revisions should be added to the bugzilla
+bug.
 
 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
@@ -283,11 +284,11 @@
 How you report a bug, or submit a GLEP update depends on several factors, such
 as the maturity of the GLEP, the preferences of the GLEP author, and the
 nature of your comments.  For the early draft stages of the GLEP, it's
-probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the GLEP author.
-For more mature, or finished GLEPs you may want to submit corrections to the
-Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_ so that your changes don't get lost.  If the GLEP
-author is a Gentoo Linux developer, assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise
-assign it to the GLEP editors.
+probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the GLEP author or
+comment on the GLEP bug.  For more mature, or finished GLEPs you may want to
+submit corrections to the Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_ under the "GLEP Updates"
+component of the GLEP product so that your changes don't get lost.  Be sure to
+CC the GLEP author on the bug.
 
 When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the
 GLEP author and/or GLEP editors.
@@ -310,9 +311,9 @@
 
 If you are interested in assuming ownership of a GLEP, send a message asking
 to take over, addressed to both the original author and the GLEP editors
-<glep@gentoo.org>.  If the original author doesn't respond to email in a
-timely manner, the GLEP editors will make a unilateral decision (it's not like
-such decisions can't be reversed :).
+<glep@gentoo.org>, or comment on the GLEP bug.  If the original author doesn't
+respond to email in a timely manner, the GLEP editors will make a unilateral decision
+(it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
 
 
 References and Footnotes
--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.3	2013-12-14 00:18:49.786152802 -0500
@@ -68,9 +68,9 @@
 injected into the Gentoo Linux development work flow with an enhancement "bug"
 submitted to the Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_.
 
-The GLEP champion then emails the GLEP editors <glep@gentoo.org> with a
-proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the GLEP.  This draft
-must be written in GLEP style as described below.
+The GLEP champion then files a bug on bugzilla in the GLEP product, under the
+"New GLEP" component with a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft
+of the GLEP.  This draft must be written in GLEP style as described below.
 
 If the GLEP editor accepts the GLEP, he will assign the GLEP a number, label
 it as Standards Track (a better name would be nice here -- suggestions?) or
@@ -111,7 +111,8 @@
 or rejected outright, or sent 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.
+by the Gentoo developer community. Any revisions should be added to the bugzilla
+bug.
 
 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
@@ -230,6 +231,7 @@
     Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev>
   * Replaces: <glep number>
   * Replaced-By: <glep number>
+  * Bug-Number: <bugzilla number>
 
 The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses
 of all the authors/owners of the GLEP.  The format of the Author header
@@ -276,6 +278,8 @@
 that replaces the current document.  The newer GLEP must have a Replaces
 header containing the number of the GLEP that it rendered obsolete.
 
+New GLEPs should have their bugzilla bug ID in the Bug-Number field. Older
+GLEPs which did not go through bugzilla may omit this field
 
 Reporting GLEP Bugs, or Submitting GLEP Updates
 ===============================================
@@ -283,11 +287,11 @@
 How you report a bug, or submit a GLEP update depends on several factors, such
 as the maturity of the GLEP, the preferences of the GLEP author, and the
 nature of your comments.  For the early draft stages of the GLEP, it's
-probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the GLEP author.
-For more mature, or finished GLEPs you may want to submit corrections to the
-Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_ so that your changes don't get lost.  If the GLEP
-author is a Gentoo Linux developer, assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise
-assign it to the GLEP editors.
+probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the GLEP author or
+comment on the GLEP bug.  For more mature, or finished GLEPs you may want to
+submit corrections to the Gentoo Linux bugzilla [#BUGS]_ under the "GLEP Updates"
+component of the GLEP product so that your changes don't get lost.  Be sure to
+CC the GLEP author on the bug.
 
 When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the
 GLEP author and/or GLEP editors.
@@ -310,9 +314,9 @@
 
 If you are interested in assuming ownership of a GLEP, send a message asking
 to take over, addressed to both the original author and the GLEP editors
-<glep@gentoo.org>.  If the original author doesn't respond to email in a
-timely manner, the GLEP editors will make a unilateral decision (it's not like
-such decisions can't be reversed :).
+<glep@gentoo.org>, or comment on the GLEP bug.  If the original author doesn't
+respond to email in a timely manner, the GLEP editors will make a unilateral decision
+(it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
 
 
 References and Footnotes

[-- Attachment #6: glep-0001.txt.4.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.4	2013-12-13 23:57:19.756157497 -0500
@@ -293,7 +293,11 @@
 GLEP author and/or GLEP editors.
 
 GLEP authors who are also Gentoo Linux developers can update the GLEPs
-themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.  
+themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
+
+Any major updates to GLEPs (that is, those that change the content of the GLEP
+rather than just fixing typos or adding small clarifications) should be
+approved by the Gentoo Council before being committed.
 
 Transferring GLEP Ownership
 ===========================

[-- Attachment #7: glep-0001.txt.5.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.5	2013-12-13 23:58:35.608157221 -0500
@@ -198,13 +198,11 @@
 GLEP Formating and Template
 ===========================
 
-GLEPs are written either in Gentoo Linux Guide-XML [#GUIDEXML]_ or in
-a just-barely-marked-up version of plain ASCII text
+GLEPs are written in a just-barely-marked-up version of plain ASCII text
 called ReStructuredText [#ReSTHOME]_ that is then converted to HTML using
 Docutils [#DOCUTILS]_.  Using ReStructuredText GLEPs allows for rich markup
 that is still quite easy to read, but results in much better-looking and more
-functional HTML.  Moreover, it should be straightforward to convert GLEPs to
-Gentoo Linux guide xml [#GUIDEXML]_ if needed.  GLEP 2 contains a boilerplate
+functional HTML.  GLEP 2 contains a boilerplate
 template [#ReST]_ for use with ReStructuredText GLEPs.
 
 
@@ -259,8 +257,7 @@
 Track.
 
 The format of a GLEP is specified with a Content-Type header, which 
-should read "text/xml" for Gentoo Guide XML or 
-"text/x-rst" for ReStructuredText GLEPs (see GLEP 2
+should read "text/x-rst" for ReStructuredText GLEPs (see GLEP 2
 [#ReST]_).
 
 The Created header records the date that the GLEP was assigned a number, while
@@ -343,8 +340,6 @@
 
 .. [#ReSTHOME] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
 
-.. [#GUIDEXML] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml
-
 .. [#DOCUTILS] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
 
 

[-- Attachment #8: glep-0001.txt.6.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 7469 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.6	2013-12-26 21:27:55.221844124 -0500
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@
 author is responsible for building consensus within the community and
 documenting dissenting opinions.
 
-Because the GLEPs are maintained as text files under CVS control, their
+Because the GLEPs are maintained as Wiki pages, their edit history is publicly
+viewable. For the older GLEPs which started out in CVS,  their
 revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal
 [#CVS]_.
 
@@ -75,10 +76,11 @@
 If the GLEP editor accepts the GLEP, he will assign the GLEP a number, label
 it as Standards Track (a better name would be nice here -- suggestions?) or
 Informational, give it status "Draft", and create and check-in the initial
-draft of the GLEP.  The GLEP editors will not unreasonably deny a GLEP.
-Reasons for denying GLEP status include duplication of effort, being
-technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
-compatibility, or not in keeping with Gentoo Linux philosophy.  
+draft of the GLEP on the Wiki in the GLEP namespace.  The GLEP editors will
+not unreasonably deny a GLEP. Reasons for denying GLEP status include 
+duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper 
+motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with Gentoo
+Linux philosophy.
 
 If a pre-GLEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-GLEP to the
 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list to help flesh it out, gain feedback and
@@ -87,8 +89,8 @@
 The author of the GLEP is then responsible for posting the GLEP to the
 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.
+necessary, the GLEP author should request changes to the Wiki page from a GLEP
+editor.
 
 Standards Track GLEPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference
 implementation.  The GLEP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference
@@ -198,38 +200,28 @@
 GLEP Formating and Template
 ===========================
 
-GLEPs are written either in Gentoo Linux Guide-XML [#GUIDEXML]_ or in
-a just-barely-marked-up version of plain ASCII text
-called ReStructuredText [#ReSTHOME]_ that is then converted to HTML using
-Docutils [#DOCUTILS]_.  Using ReStructuredText GLEPs allows for rich markup
-that is still quite easy to read, but results in much better-looking and more
-functional HTML.  Moreover, it should be straightforward to convert GLEPs to
-Gentoo Linux guide xml [#GUIDEXML]_ if needed.  GLEP 2 contains a boilerplate
-template [#ReST]_ for use with ReStructuredText GLEPs.
+GLEPs are written in Wiki markup [#WIKIMARKUP]_, which is a markup language
+compatible with MediaWiki.  This format is both human-readable and displays
+well on the Gentoo Wiki.  GLEP 2 contains a boilerplate template
+[#WIKITEMPL]_ for use with Wiki markup GLEPs.
 
-
-GLEP Header Preamble
+GLEP Header
 ====================
 
-Each GLEP must begin with an RFC 2822 style header preamble.  The headers
-must appear in the following order.  Headers marked with "*" are
-optional and are described below.  All other headers are required. ::
+Every GLEP has certain attributes associated with it. When a GLEP is sent
+to the mailing lists for discussion, it should begin with an RFC 2822 style
+header preamble.  The headers must appear in the following order.  Headers
+marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are 
+required. ::
 
     GLEP: <glep number>
     Title: <glep title>
-    Version: <cvs version string>
-    Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
     Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
-  * Discussions-To: <email address>
     Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
              Final | Replaced>
     Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
-  * Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
   * Requires: <glep numbers>
-    Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
-    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev>
   * Replaces: <glep number>
-  * Replaced-By: <glep number>
 
 The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses
 of all the authors/owners of the GLEP.  The format of the Author header
@@ -248,33 +240,21 @@
 email addresses in GLEPs will be obscured as a defense against spam
 harvesters.
 
-While a GLEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft
-phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where
-the GLEP is being discussed.  No Discussions-To header is necessary if the
-GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the gentoo-dev
-mailing list.  Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To header will not
-be obscured.
-
 The Type header specifies the type of GLEP: Informational or Standards
 Track.
 
-The format of a GLEP is specified with a Content-Type header, which 
-should read "text/xml" for Gentoo Guide XML or 
-"text/x-rst" for ReStructuredText GLEPs (see GLEP 2
-[#ReST]_).
-
-The Created header records the date that the GLEP was assigned a number, while
-Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the GLEP are
-posted to gentoo-dev.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g.
-14-Aug-2001.
-
 GLEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the GLEP numbers that this GLEP
 depends on.
 
-GLEPs may also have a Replaced-By header indicating that a GLEP has been
-rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the GLEP
-that replaces the current document.  The newer GLEP must have a Replaces
-header containing the number of the GLEP that it rendered obsolete.
+
+A GLEP may have a Replaces header, which indicates that this GLEP supersedes
+a previous one.  This header should contain the number of the GLEP that this
+one renders obsolete.
+
+When the GLEP editor enters the GLEP into the Wiki, they will be automatically
+prompted for the contents of these fields, which will then be associated with
+the GLEP as metadata.  The version of the GLEP stored on the Wiki should not
+contain the RFC 2822 headers as part of the body of the GLEP.
 
 
 Reporting GLEP Bugs, or Submitting GLEP Updates
@@ -292,8 +272,8 @@
 When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the
 GLEP author and/or GLEP editors.
 
-GLEP authors who are also Gentoo Linux developers can update the GLEPs
-themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.  
+GLEP authors must have a GLEP editor commit their changes to the Wiki, as the
+GLEP namespace is restricted to GLEP editors.
 
 Transferring GLEP Ownership
 ===========================
@@ -330,7 +310,7 @@
    Linux viewcvs web site at
    http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/
 
-.. [#ReST] GLEP 2, Sample ReStructuredText GLEP Template, 
+.. [#GLEP2] GLEP 2, Sample ReStructuredText GLEP Template, 
    (http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0002.html)
 
 .. [#BUGS] http://bugs.gentoo.org
@@ -341,9 +321,7 @@
 
 .. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
 
-.. [#ReSTHOME] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
-
-.. [#GUIDEXML] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml
+.. [#WIKIMARKUP] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup
 
 .. [#DOCUTILS] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
 

[-- Attachment #9: glep-0001.txt.7.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.7	2013-12-27 12:28:19.161563324 -0500
@@ -190,9 +190,12 @@
    specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing
    code or significantly modifying ebuilds.
 
-8. Copyright/public domain -- Each GLEP must either be explicitly
-   labelled as placed in the public domain (see this GLEP as an example) or
-   licensed under the Open Publication License [#OPL].
+8. Copyright -- Every new GLEP must be explicitly labelled as licensed under 
+   the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license, version 3.0.
+   Older GLEPs in the public domain should be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3.0 when
+   they are moved to the Wiki. GLEPs released under the Open Publication 
+   License (OPL) may remain as-is, but are strongly encouraged to be relicensed
+   under CC-BY-SA 3.0 with the consent of all authors.
 
 
 GLEP Formating and Template
@@ -339,8 +342,6 @@
 
 .. [#COUNCIL] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html
 
-.. [#OPL] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/
-
 .. [#ReSTHOME] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
 
 .. [#GUIDEXML] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.xml
@@ -351,4 +352,4 @@
 Copyright
 =========
 
-This document has been placed in the public domain.
+This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14

[Chris Reffett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3082 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/04/2014 03:07 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> On 01/04/2014 02:46 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.
>> This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
>> should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
>> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not
>> hesitate to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you
>> previously suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
>> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 
>> 2014-01-07.
> 
>> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
>> Ulrich
> 
> I ask that the council vote on my proposed changes to GLEP 1 and
> 2, discussion is at 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3211 and 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3213. I have 
> re-attached the patches here for convenience; the long rationales
> for each patch can be found in the first link, but here's a quick
> summary of each:
> 
> 1. Remove the names of "Current GLEP Editors"
> 
> 2. Allow non-technical GLEP discussion to be on gentoo-project
> (since we do that anyway)
> 
> 3. Workflow change: move GLEP submission and modification to
> bugzilla instead of emailing only to glep@.
> 
> 4. Clarification of what changes should go to Council (this
> wording has any changes which affect the meaning of the GLEP go
> through council, nobody objected to that)
> 
> 5. Remove GuideXML as a GLEP format. None use it right now.
> 
> 6. Workflow change: move GLEP storage to the Wiki, significantly 
> changing the formatting and headers of GLEPs. If this is approved, 
> please also consider and approve the changes to GLEP 2 found at 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Creffett/GLEP2 (see below).
> 
> 7. Change the copyright from OPL/public domain to CC-BY-SA 3.0 to
> be compatible with the wiki. Allows the few existing OPL GLEPs to
> stay as-is but strongly encourages a relicense with author
> consent.
> 
> 
> Going with item 6, I also have a couple of drafts of how the 
> Wiki-format GLEPs would look. 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Creffett/GLEP2 is a full
> conversion of GLEP 2 to Wiki markup and changes the GLEP's
> formatting explanations to reflect Wiki markup instead of ReST.
> a3li has also added a demonstration of the GLEP namespace at 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:1.
> 
> Chris Reffett
> 
Sorry for the noise, but one final change: modified wording of patch 2
to make -dev the mailing list for technical GLEPs and -project for
non-technical GLEPs, rather than differentiating between them based on
Standards or Informational.

Chris Reffett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iKYEARECAGYFAlLN3alfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM2NzU5RjUyMDczREJDQkVDQTBDRkE1NERC
Nzk1QThBNDI2MTgzNTQACgkQ23laikJhg1SA3gCdGhs/ZRdigiNhS9jZRkAYJOLH
wPQAoJ5f40oyUtUXVn6LV94GMWTkF276
=QPL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: glep-0001.txt.2.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3843 bytes --]

--- glep-0001.txt	2013-12-13 23:13:04.421167161 -0500
+++ glep-0001.txt.2	2014-01-08 18:20:43.176114149 -0500
@@ -81,14 +81,16 @@
 compatibility, or not in keeping with Gentoo Linux philosophy.  
 
 If a pre-GLEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-GLEP to the
-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list to help flesh it out, gain feedback and
-consensus from the community at large, and improve the GLEP for re-submission.
+gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list (for technical GLEPs) or the
+gentoo-project@gentoo.org mailing list (for non-technical GLEPs) to help flesh
+it out, gain feedback and 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 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.
+gentoo-dev or gentoo-project 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
@@ -98,7 +100,7 @@
 
 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 the Gentoo Linux forums [#FORUMS]_ will not be
+the mailing lists 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
@@ -106,7 +108,7 @@
 should use their discretion here.
 
 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
+[#COUNCIL]_ that it is ready for review by way of the appropriate mailing
 list.  GLEPs are then reviewed at a Council meeting where the may be approved
 or rejected outright, or sent back to the author(s) for revision.  This
 generally should be done a few weeks in advance of the actual review so as to
@@ -227,7 +229,7 @@
   * Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
   * Requires: <glep numbers>
     Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
-    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev>
+    Post-History: <dates of postings to gentoo-dev/gentoo-project>
   * Replaces: <glep number>
   * Replaced-By: <glep number>
 
@@ -251,7 +253,7 @@
 While a GLEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft
 phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where
 the GLEP is being discussed.  No Discussions-To header is necessary if the
-GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the gentoo-dev
+GLEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the appropriate
 mailing list.  Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To header will not
 be obscured.
 
@@ -265,8 +267,8 @@
 
 The Created header records the date that the GLEP was assigned a number, while
 Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the GLEP are
-posted to gentoo-dev.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g.
-14-Aug-2001.
+posted to gentoo-dev or gentoo-project.  Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy
+format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.
 
 GLEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the GLEP numbers that this GLEP
 depends on.

[gentoo-project] Sticking to GNOME 2 complicated after regressive GNOME 3 stabilization. (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14)

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5376 bytes --]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:46:05 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to discuss or vote on.

Hello everyone

There are reasons for an user to avoid upgrading to GNOME 3:

    one reason is that the introduction of systemd is something the
    user would not want to go through; whereas you can get a mostly
    working installation without OpenRC, it is bound to get worse [1];

    the other reason is that whereas GNOME 2 used to be light enough
    to run on older hardware, GNOME 3 has became a much more heavy UI
    both in terms of CPU, Memory and GPU; so, people with older
    computers that upgrade are presented with a regressed broken system.

The former might be an option for the user; however, as seen in the
past as well as to this very day, quite some users would rather not
upgrade to it for various reasons [2]. The latter leaves no option for
the user, the user would love to continue using what the user already
has been using for quite some time; if it ain't broken, why change?

So, both of these reasons yield a lot of trouble [3] because GNOME 3
went stable in the same slot as GNOME 2; therefore, an user that wishes
to stick with GNOME 2 needs to assure he correctly puts a mask on any
GNOME 3 related ebuild. While this would be easy for the obvious main
GNOME packages with >=3, it's less obvious to do this on random
libraries which have other version numbers than 3.x.

This results in a set of mask files floating around in forum threads;
but as things are dynamic as well as the mask on some libraries
mismatches the actual range, it doesn't always work out well. Let alone
that people have to find this hidden in one or another forum thread.

From a pure QA perspective it appears even more problematic; because
another consequence of the upgrade to GNOME 3 is that maintainers have
the same problem when they are requested in a bug to fix a GNOME 2
version, they would need to get GNOME 2 to assure their fix works.

Well, GNOME 2 is so stable that it mostly works as well if you manage
to downgrade back to it or disallow any upgrade; but for how long will
that be? Time is ticking before GNOME 2 is no longer an option.

Since there is a need for this I would like to raise a discussion on
some questions here on project as well as in the Council meeting:

 1. Will removing GNOME 2 when it becomes unmaintainable upset users?

    (From what I've seen, yes, but what do you think?)

 2. What can we do to satisfy users that want to stick to GNOME 2?

    2.a. Bring a fork like MATE to the Portage tree?

    2.b. Split off GNOME 2 to a different SLOT, category or name?
         Can we still do this at this point in time?

3. How can we prevent this from happening in the future?

4. Is a news item needed for this situation? To suggest alternatives?

What do you think?

PS:   For completeness, I should mention my interest with this mail is
      to forward the feedback from users; I run GNOME 3.11 + systemd.

      Rather than a tête–à–tête in #gentoo-desktop with one project
      member or an user discussion on the forums, I am under the
      impression that this needs much wider discussion than remaining
      to be a hidden regression; this mail intents to help the Gentoo
      GNOME project, it thus doesn't request a vote, just a discussion.

Thank you for reading.

References (there's more to be found, eg. on IRC; a small selection):

 [1]: GNOME 3.11 - Features - Systemd for the user session
      https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features/SystemdUserSession

 [2]: A set of forum posts regarding avoiding systemd:

          "Systemd headsup of L.P. - reads like at first of april"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-962232.html

          "Are we losing freedom of choice?"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-974262.html

          "Need help building a non-systemd modern system"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-974500.html

          "systemd"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-975018.html

          "Quick guide to preventing assimilation?"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-977278.html

          "please new forum _Advanced_Gentoo_without_KIT_"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-977528.html

 [3]: A set of forum posts regarding avoiding GNOME 3:

          "Masking Gnome 3"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-977288.html

          "installing gnome2"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-977638.html

          "HowTo mask gnome-3.8"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-977750.html

          "emerging gdm pulls in gnome 3.8"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-980528.html

          "Help me block gnome-3.x?"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-980866.html

          "Masking Gnome 3 and installing MATE"
          http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-980922.html

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Sticking to GNOME 2 complicated after regressive GNOME 3 stabilization. (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14)

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>  1. Will removing GNOME 2 when it becomes unmaintainable upset users?
>
>     (From what I've seen, yes, but what do you think?)

I can practically guarantee it.  I'm sure people still miss KDE3 and
that transition was less dramatic (though clearly a painful one for
older systems).

However, I think your next question is the more relevant one.

>
>  2. What can we do to satisfy users that want to stick to GNOME 2?
>
>     2.a. Bring a fork like MATE to the Portage tree?
>
>     2.b. Split off GNOME 2 to a different SLOT, category or name?
>          Can we still do this at this point in time?

I think the more important question isn't so much what we CAN do, but
what are contributors WILLING to do.

Honestly, I'd really be interested in feedback from the Gnome team
about what their plans actually are.  Sure, we can all bikeshed and
maybe somebody will think of something they haven't already (though
I'm skeptical).

I think the right solution really depends on what the long-term plans
are for the Gnome team, and how many resources are available to
maintain a Gnome v2 solution (if any).

If Gnome v2 is going away in a month or two and nobody is willing to
do anything to keep it around, then it really isn't worth going
through any trouble to try to change SLOTs or otherwise make the
interim less painful.  If Gnome v2 has a viable future in Gentoo then
of course we should try to do something to make it more usable, and
that won't be a problem because we'll have identified people to do the
work.

>
> 3. How can we prevent this from happening in the future?

It will boil down to volunteers one way or another.  Again, I'd like
to hear from the Gnome team because they may already have things under
control.

>
> 4. Is a news item needed for this situation? To suggest alternatives?

Again, that will depend on what the news actually is.

>       Rather than a tête–à–tête in #gentoo-desktop with one project
>       member or an user discussion on the forums, I am under the
>       impression that this needs much wider discussion than remaining
>       to be a hidden regression; this mail intents to help the Gentoo
>       GNOME project, it thus doesn't request a vote, just a discussion.

Well, I'm sure we'll have plenty of discussion.  However, before the
bikeshedding starts in earnest I think we're best hearing from the
Gnome team.  I am not speaking for the whole Council, but my guess is
that when this topic comes up next week about all we'll be able to do
is say, "yup, it's a shame - anybody willing to actually do some work
to change it?"

But, let's see what the Gnome team has to say.  They could have a plan
already...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Sticking to GNOME 2 complicated after regressive GNOME 3 stabilization.

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2382 bytes --]

On 1/9/14, 12:40 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> There are reasons for an user to avoid upgrading to GNOME 3:
> 
>     one reason is that the introduction of systemd is something the
>     user would not want to go through; whereas you can get a mostly
>     working installation without OpenRC, it is bound to get worse [1];
> 
>     the other reason is that whereas GNOME 2 used to be light enough
>     to run on older hardware, GNOME 3 has became a much more heavy UI
>     both in terms of CPU, Memory and GPU; so, people with older
>     computers that upgrade are presented with a regressed broken system.

I think they are valid reasons for the users. However, I think Gentoo
maintainability also needs to be considered.

It's not obvious to me whether it's the right time to go to Council with
this. What does Gentoo gnome team say?

> So, both of these reasons yield a lot of trouble [3] because GNOME 3
> went stable in the same slot as GNOME 2; therefore, an user that wishes
> to stick with GNOME 2 needs to assure he correctly puts a mask on any
> GNOME 3 related ebuild. While this would be easy for the obvious main
> GNOME packages with >=3, it's less obvious to do this on random
> libraries which have other version numbers than 3.x.

Can this be solved with some gnome2 profile?

>  1. Will removing GNOME 2 when it becomes unmaintainable upset users?

Pretty sure yes, as always with things like that. However, sometimes we
just can't do much.

>  2. What can we do to satisfy users that want to stick to GNOME 2?
> 
>     2.a. Bring a fork like MATE to the Portage tree?

Up to relevant maintainers I think. :)

>     2.b. Split off GNOME 2 to a different SLOT, category or name?
>          Can we still do this at this point in time?

Same as above. Please also see
<http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091104-kde3-deprecation-notice.xml> -
maybe having an overlay or repo for gnome2 would work better than trying
to keep it alive in portage.

> 3. How can we prevent this from happening in the future?

Probably not much we can do - upstreams do things like that all the time.

Stabilization is another thing. My understanding is Gentoo gnome team
signed off on this.

> 4. Is a news item needed for this situation? To suggest alternatives?

News item would be nice indeed. Up to Gentoo gnome team IMHO.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1275 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 4. Januar 2014, 20:46:05 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday
> 2014-01-07.
> 
> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> Ulrich

Making the whole profile tree EAPI=5
(This involves setting EAPI=5 in the main profiles directory, then moving the 
eapi-5-files files to a suitable place (base?) and removing the eapi-5-files 
directory.)

The 10.0 profiles were deprecated on 2 Feb 2013 and removed from profiles.desc 
on 9 Feb 2013, i.e. since then everyone should have switched to a 13.0 profile 
using EAPI=5 anyway. 

The plan was to wait one year from that moment on.


http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130108-summary.txt
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89405

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Sticking to GNOME 2 complicated after regressive GNOME 3 stabilization. (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-01-14)

[Pacho Ramos]

El jue, 09-01-2014 a las 00:40 +0100, Tom Wijsman escribió:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 20:46:05 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is
> > the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> > agenda to discuss or vote on.
[...]

Not sure how to group all but will try :/

1. People don't wanting to update to Gnome3 due Systemd -> I wouldn't
start again the thread about systemd and why this people hates so much
systemd, but if they really really dislike so much systemd they can
still run Gnome without it, they will get some problems (in concrete, I
remember power-management due gnome-settings-daemon (they would need to
run something in background to take care of hibernating/suspending, a
bit like we needed to do with Gnome 2.32 when nobody was logged in a
gnome session), and multiseat support (switching users could break, but
it was broken already in Gnome 2.32 for a long time, I remember being
unable to open more gdm instanced for new users with 2.32 just a few
months ago on this laptop and just a few weeks in all the machines I
updated recently to 3.8). There will be more problems and some upstreams
will refuse to even investigate the issue if you are not running
systemd... but upstream won't either support you with 2.32. Then, if
they are going to run an unsupported by upstream setup, I would prefer
to run the "latest" one than 2.32.

2. GDM 2.20 -> Some people looks to still want to use it... I personally
would prefer them to run lightdm or MDM if they don't want to run new
GDM. Lightdm worked fine last time I used it, MDM is still not packaged
on Gentoo but, at least, is a fork of GDM 2.20 with some fixes and
better maintained... but keep running GDM 2.20 looks to me like the
worst option.

3. 3D support -> This is the major blocker for running Gnome3 currently,
I even suffered it in one of the machines whose nouveau driver wasn't
really working and needed to force software rendering for it. Finally I
was able to buy an old (but still supported by nvidia-drivers for some
ages) 6800GT by 18 eur ;)

But there is no solution for this apart of:
- Use software rendering
- Use gnome-panel-3.8 (the "flashback" session), but this is really
ugly, would be nice if could be improved with upstream, I think it's
used a bit more often by Arch people, I patched it to at least run
nautilus to draw background but still smells :S

Anyway, this isn't a distribution problem, this affects all
distributions, if there were a better gnome-panel package that we could
package, we would do it for sure

Regarding CPU/memory requirements... this is the first time I see this
problem, the older machine I maintain (a PentiumIV) has no problem
moving Gnome 3.8 over how it was performing with 2.32 (once I "fixed"
the 3D issues I have commented). Things like evolution-3.8 are much much
better (in performance and bug fixes) that 2.32...

4. Regarding stability of Gnome 2.32... Have that people looked at
changelog (NEWS file) for only part of the things from 2.32 to 3.8? Does
people know that a bug eating (yes, losing them) mails when fetching
with POP3 with an unstable network was fixed in evolution-3.8.5? Does
people know that nobody was going to fix people needing to set proxy in
various places due partial dconf/gconf migration? (this are only a few
examples)

5. Regarding TomWij mail, yes, I know that your intention is only to
bring attention to this to try to find a solution, I really appreciate
your help contributing to not get lots of FUDs to spread without end in
forums :)

6. Regarding Cinnamon -> we need help maintaining it because it's
getting more complicated to maintain because its upstream is deviating
more from Gnome upstream. Anyway, the current version in the tree was
still working ok (with gnome-3.8, for 3.10 we will need to involve more
work)

7. Regarding MATE -> I simply don't care, I won't bring it to the tree
because I don't have time for maintaining it and not interest (since I
am a happy Gnome3 user... yes, running systemd and not the Classical
mode, the "ugly" one). But, of course, I would be really happy if some
of this people would maintain it and offer it (I think a dev was
interested on it in the past, but no idea what did occur finally, maybe
he could get help from people maintaining MATE on overlays and similar
as it won't surely be an easy task)

8. Maybe we could get some help to improve gnome-panel-3.8, or find a
way to run the old gnome-panel-2.32 with the rest of 3.8. I am thinking
here in people not being able to have 3D support. For people disliking
the new gnome3 look I would point them to Classic mode (that is
completely official), extensions, cinnamon...

I have no idea but, would the mate-panel require many more "mate"
things?

9. Regarding Gnome 2.32 maintainer ship -> I *personally* won't take
care of it, but that doesn't block others from doing it. The problem is
that it's not easy to really maintain that as it's not maintained at all
by upstream, and we are one of the last distributions still providing it
(then, it's really difficult to really fix the bugs people will find for
sure). Also, I am opposed to people running things like epiphany-2.32,
evolution-2.32, evince-2.32... they really have a lot of bugs that has
been fixed during this years in newer versions.

10. The news item -> What concrete info do you miss? We could add it to
the guide pointed in existing news item:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GNOME/3.8-upgrade-guide

I wrote there some information about Classic mode, extensions... :/

11. I really agree with Tetromino's reply, he explains pretty well what
are the problems to "maintain" Gnome 2.32 more and more time (I am
talking about really maintaining it, not keeping it in the tree with
bugs accumulating and the "maintainers" ignoring them because they are
really hard to fix)

12. Also Gilles' mail explains pretty well what blocks, for example,
MATE, it's more related with man power than anything else.

Hope this clarify a bit more the things 

Regards