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
