[gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
Hi, On 10/25/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Danny van Dyk wrote: Design phase for new projects: New projects need to post an RFC containing information about their goals, the plan on how to implement their goals and the necessary resources to -dev prior to creating the project. This proposal was accepted with 6 members voting yes and one member abstained from voting Could someone amend GLEP 39 to reflect this new requirement? (This _isn't_ intended to turn into a flamefest. It's intended to start a discussion on a point of principle). The current metastructure (as documented in GLEP 39) is a little unusual; it's a proposal that was voted in by all Gentoo developers. As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a vote of all Gentoo developers? (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing GLEP?) Please - let's not get sidetracked about the nature of the change, or its merits. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: The current metastructure (as documented in GLEP 39) is a little unusual; it's a proposal that was voted in by all Gentoo developers. As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a vote of all Gentoo developers? Well, let's make it simpler, then. Does it say anywhere in GLEP 39 that the elected Council cannot change it? Does it limit the council's powers in any way? (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing GLEP?) For something like this, I think that merely noting that it was changed via an amendment from the Council should be sufficient. I do agree that changing it inline without such a note would be bad. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing GLEP?) Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an amendment to GLEP 39, or would we have to rewrite the whole thing, with just the one change, to supersede? Perhaps we need an amendment to GLEP 1 to allow explictly-stated amendments? Realize that the new council is trying to both become the leaders of Gentoo that so many seem to want, yet also have to balance not overstepping the bounds some people think we need. We honestly do need everyone's opinions on these things, so thank you for posing yours. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:27:13 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to | change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a | vote of all Gentoo developers? The Council has already done so, with the addition of the final bullet point in Specification list B. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
Hi Chris, On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, let's make it simpler, then. Does it say anywhere in GLEP 39 that the elected Council cannot change it? Does it limit the council's powers in any way? No, it does not. That's why I've asked for a discussion of this as point of principle, rather than as a point of law, so to speak. Reading the council logs and seeing this item, it occurred to me that it's something that I don't think we've ever actually debated as a group. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Realize that the new council is trying to both become the leaders of Gentoo that so many seem to want, yet also have to balance not overstepping the bounds some people think we need. We honestly do need everyone's opinions on these things, so thank you for posing yours. I don't mind the council touching the metastructure, as long as they do it right ;) If they don't, I will surely state so and ask for a referendum. If it turns out that like 60% of the devs don't share the council's opinion I'm sure they will re-think their decision. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On 10/25/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Council has already done so, with the addition of the final bullet point in Specification list B. Thanks for pointing that out. Best regards, Stu -- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:17 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an amendment to GLEP 39, or would we have to rewrite the whole thing, with just the one change, to supersede? Perhaps we need an amendment to GLEP 1 to allow explictly-stated amendments? I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been changed. I think it'll make things easier than a read-GLEP-39-now-read-GLEPs-39a-to-39z type of approach. We could also have a 'Revisions' section somewhere (if we don't have one already) in the GLEP listing the date, a link to the Council meeting logs approving the change, and a (very) brief summary of the change. I'm sure there are other ways we could do this that would also be practical. I think the likely best way would be to do something like: All new projects must first be proposed as an RFC to the gentoo-dev mailing list with a list of goals, project plan, and a list of resources required[1]. Then there would be an Amendments section, which would contain something like: 1. This was added by vote of the Gentoo Council on 2006/10/19 to improve communications between developers. We could then include a link to the meeting summary, too, or a link to the mailing list thread or whatever, that caused the change. This should satisfy everyone, as changes are noted from the original, yet there's still just the one authoritative place to look for the information. How does this work for you? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
Hi Chris, On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the likely best way would be to do something like: [snip] Yeah, that works for me. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in | intensely boring radiation safety training.) Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to things involving radiation? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT] On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in | intensely boring radiation safety training.) Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to things involving radiation? Yes, when you're handling actual nukes (nuclear sources). No, when it's the fourth eight-hour day of explaining how the keys to nuclear safety are distance (farther is better, and exposure is an inverse square law), time (shorter is better), and shielding (more is better, and use plastic or water to stop neutrons, not lead). Meanwhile, I received this reply to my e-mail well before the actual e-mail. Anybody know what's causing these e-mail issues? Now that we have trustees in place, would ordering new boxes help? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpul3cw5lsGw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
i just noticed mx2.gentoo.org isnt responding on port 25, shouldnt it be? defeats the purpose of backup MX if its not respond :)CpuID.On 10/26/06, Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT] On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting.I was in | intensely boring radiation safety training.) Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to things involving radiation?Yes, when you're handling actual nukes (nuclear sources).No, when it's the fourth eight-hour day of explaining how the keys to nuclear safetyare distance (farther is better, and exposure is an inverse square law),time (shorter is better), and shielding (more is better, and use plastic or water to stop neutrons, not lead).Meanwhile, I received this reply to my e-mail well before the actuale-mail.Anybody know what's causing these e-mail issues?Now that wehave trustees in place, would ordering new boxes help? -g2boojum---Grant GoodyearGentoo Developer[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojumGPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B09573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing the metastructure (was: [Council] Summary of the last meeting)
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:17, Stuart Herbert wrote: I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been changed. well each GLEP itself has a version number ... we could just bump it and expect people to go read CVS history, or we add a new section to the end of the glep and use that as a mini ChangeLog ... -mike pgpeLLfK4tpvn.pgp Description: PGP signature
