[gentoo-project] [GLEP] GLEP Purpose and Guidelines

[gentoo-project] [GLEP] GLEP Purpose and Guidelines

[Tiziano Müller]

Hi there

Since GLEP 1 is outdated (it still mentions project managers, etc.) and I
think that current GLEP workflow is too undefined and not well suited for
changing organizational policies I wrote a new one:

  http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-glep.html
  http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-glep.txt

One big change is that GLEPs shouldn't be used anymore implicitly (as in: we
have some council policies in proj/en/council but no reference to GLEP 39
which states additional policies), but they must either be linked to or the
content of the GLEP must be added to the corresponding policy documents.

Cheers,
Tiziano




-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] GLEP Purpose and Guidelines

[Peter Volkov]

В Втр, 17/06/2008 в 09:48 +0200, Tiziano Müller пишет:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-glep.txt

Your GLEP describes only two possible types: Technical and
Organizational. At the same time type of your GLEP is informational. How
this could be? What happens with informational GLEPs?

Why did you dropped motivation from the body while mentioning it in
workflow? What about previous copyright claim?

Actually this is just a beginning of questions and generally it feels
this glep is not finished and should borrow more ideas from the current
GLEP 1. It's even better to update GLEP 1 instead for writing new one...

-- 
Peter.

-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] GLEP Purpose and Guidelines

[Tiziano Müller]

Peter Volkov wrote:

> ? ???, 17/06/2008 ? 09:48 +0200, Tiziano Müller ?????:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-glep.txt
> 
> ?Your GLEP describes only two possible types: Technical and
> Organizational.
Yes.

> At the same time type of your GLEP is informational.
I can't use the new types since I have to write the GLEP in terms of the
current GLEP system/types.

> How  
> this could be? What happens with informational GLEPs?
The current ones remain as they are. New ones should be one of the mentioned
types.

> 
> Why did you dropped motivation from the body while mentioning it in
> workflow?
There must be a motivation. But the motivation could also be made clear in
the abstract. In other words: There must not be a separate
section "motivation" to make the motivation clear.

> ?What about previous copyright claim? 
What do you mean? (yes, in my proposal a "Credits" section is needed)

> 
> Actually this is just a beginning of questions and generally it feels
> this glep is not finished
true, by intention. Just keep them coming.

> and should borrow more ideas from the current 
> GLEP 1. It's even better to update GLEP 1 instead for writing new one...
No. A GLEP should not be updated (besides trivial updates). That's one of
the things I'm trying to make clear here. It's not good at all to have the
GLEPs describing policies, they should only be used to propose/describe
changes to our policies (example: even if some country's law system is
based on the roman right you also don't get a copy of the roman right and a
book with changes made to it if you want to look at the current right).
In other words: GLEPs should only be patches or changesets.


-- 
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list