Re: GNOME Enhancement Procedure

Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:

> Hi,
> Here's a draft of one way to try and avoid this kind of extended
> flamewar. Let me know what you think.
> Two example topics we might use for a test run of the procedure are
> this -config issue, and the sound server/API issue.

Looking this over, a couple of things came to mind, mostly in
terms of simplifying it a bit:

 * It would be better if the dates could be simplified, and the
   fast-track approval vs. normal approval distinction eliminated.
   It's a little tricky to do these both without greatly extending
   the timeline. Something as simple as:

  - Two weeks for people to submit comments, reminder sent out
    after one week.

  - Once the committee approves the RFP, two weeks for
    people to submit proposals.

   I think could work. But it extends the minimum time for getting
   a proposal through from 19 days to 28 days. (Compare this
   to timescales for process for the OMG or W3C, and this may seem
   quite short...)

 * I think you can eliminate the desciption of how the responsible 
   maintainers vote on the proposal, and simply say:

    The chosen proposal, if any, must be endorsed by more than 50%
    of the maintainers.

 * Just eliminate "Harrassment via Procedure" until it becomes a
   problem. Or instead say at the top:
    The intent of the proposal process is to reach consensus
    on technical issues with as much accuracy, timeliness and
    cordiality as possible. Abuse of the process will not
    be tolerated. 




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]