[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Dan Meltzer]

If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it
should be approved?

/devils advocate

On 12/12/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
 | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
 | explicit approval of all teams involved cannot receive managerial
 | approval.

 So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP saying
 move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure said
 documentation to this new format etc etc, and the QA group were in
 favour, and the developer community in general were in favour, and the
 council were in favour, and the people proposed by the GLEP to manage
 the new documentation were in favour, but the existing owners of the
 developer documentation were not, you're saying that it shouldn't be
 approved?

 --
 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
 Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
 Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm




-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:35:40 -0500 Dan Meltzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it
| should be approved?

Nope. I'm questioning the use of the word involved.

After that, I'll probably question replacing a single author with a
committee. We don't want to end up designing things like Ada, after
all...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature