Re: GEPs

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 23:53, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 23:47, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Jeff Waugh">
> > 
> > > I think Havoc means the 'changes to modules list' GEPs that were not done
> > > for 2.2 because everyone pretty much agreed anyway. Might be worth trying it
> > > out for 2.4.
> > 
> > James Henstridge just pointed out to me that a clear GEP decision could have
> > avoided the zvt vs. vte fallout thread we had recently.
> 
> FWIW, I don't really feel that this is true. It would have (perhaps)
> made it harder to ignore what the module list was, but it was already
> pretty hard to ignore. I suppose if a GEP is just a way to cover our
> asses with people who don't pay attention to the lists, then yes, it
> would fill that role, but otherwise I don't see how it actually _solves_
> the zvt v. vte problem.
> 
> To put it another way: if the people involved don't want to agree (see:
> theme management) GEPs are just a more formal way for them to argue. It
> doesn't actually solve anything. 

BTW, I'm not against using a GEP process for the 2.4 module list- it
meets my criteria of having very interested parties (the release team)
to drive it, so I think it would be maintained, useful as a 'living'
document, etc. I'm just claiming it wouldn't have solved the zvt/vte
problem.

Luis