-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.06.08 19:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [snip]
> Easily-extractable EAPI either has change scope limitations or a > considerable performance impact. That needs to be quantified. e.g. 20ms to 200ms is a factor of 10x but it would not be considered 'considerable'. ms == 0.001 seconds > > GLEP 55's getting nowhere because a small group of religious fanatics > are doing anything they can to derail it because it came from "the > wrong people". [snip] I don't accept that. as I said in -council last night. A good technical paper presents an impartial, convincing technial argument. Glep 55 version 1.5 fails, as evidenced by the number of people who are not convinced that the problem it addresses exists, never mind the proposed solution. There are several issues. Some with glep55 and some with the glep process. Glep 55 (any version) does not cover all the areas in http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html#what-belongs-in-a- successful-glep and it needs to. Glep 55 is a particularly complex glep. its not really suited to the current glep process which is written as if you agree everying during the process of writing the glep and its a done deal when it gets to council. Glep 55 would benefit from being subject to the full rigours of the life cycle process, which has already started to happen. Council have agreed the problem is worth addressing. Thats the first step in the process. We have several options to solve the acknowledged problem. Thats the next life cycle process step. They need to be presented first for peer review, then to council with some metrics on the bottlenecks of each. That does not mean you need fully working solutions. With that information, one solution will be selected for implementaion. Breaking the problem into small pieces and addressing each piece is the way complex problems are solved outside of Gentoo. At the top level its called Systems Engineering. I'm quite happy to do the editorial work but I need the facts to work with and after two years we still only have subjective assessments of the alternatives. Glep55 will be rejected no matter who presents it and where the ideas come from if its presented on one piece, its just too much to take in in one go. The approvers need to poke at the glep as it develops, not be presented with a done deal. > > -- > Ciaran McCreesh > - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkotcqcACgkQTE4/y7nJvatl/QCg3TwEohuKnT1xG8fgTybAs9DU vq0AoLyui1F3OQ5xChZAXCLQK12GefQA =PP28 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
