Re: chopping and changing ...

[Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>]

Hi Jeff,

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> <quote who="Michael Meeks">
>
> > 	All of this miltates against switching to a new application, and in
> > favour of maintaining the old. Thus it seems to me increasingly
> > important - as Gnome gains market share, and serious commercial support
> > - that we eschew the "hey we'll just switch some modules in core" in
> > favour of a more public, accountable, open, protracted process.
> > Furthermore, it seems to me that since we'll have to be maintaining
> > these things for the concievable future - we should pay careful
> > attention to what we're letting ourselves in for, especially if we are
> > blessing them as part of the Gnome core.
>
> Okay, so Mark has just accosted the release team about this too, but your
> points here are the strongest I've seen for imposing some bureaucracy on the
> choice of desktop modules.

	Accosted? More like feebly raised my little finger :-) But
yeah, Michael's arguments are extremely sound ...

> So, I'd like to propose a minimal, knowledge-retaining, efficient
> bureaucracy for this purpose. :-)
>
>   - For each release process in which GNOME Desktop module changes are
>     proposed, a single, extended GEP will document the decisions and
>     discussions regarding the entire release module list. It will be named
>     after the release, eg. "GEP X: GNOME 2.2 Desktop Modules".
>
> And for the developer platform changes:
>
>   - For each release process in which GNOME Developer Platform module
>     changes are proposed, individual GEPs will document the decisions and
>     discussions regarding a particular addition, change or removal. It will
>     be named after the release and module, eg. "GEP X: GNOME 2.2 Developer
>     Platform: libexample".
>
> Yeah, so I've used legalese to describe them, bite me. :-) Thoughts?

	Sounds excellant :-)

Good Luck,
Mark.