[Fwd: Re: New procedure for proposed modules]

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

Slightly surprised that this is being held for moderation on 
gnome-hackers, and worried it will get lost in the ether, so bouncing it 
to r-t too.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: New procedure for proposed modules
Date: 	Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:04:03 +0100
From: 	Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
To: 	gnome-hackers gnome org
References: 	<1144090156 27826 11 camel localhost localdomain>



Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The GNOME Release Team, after some discussion, has come up with a new
> procedure for getting modules accepted into the next release of GNOME.
> It is our hope that the new procedure will lead to less confusion. This
> is more of a tweak than an overhaul, taking into account lessons learned
> from the past.
>   
As I understand it, this implicitly makes module inclusion slightly 
different for applications and libraries. A question to ask if I've 
understood this correctly:

If you're an application, then you get your module synchronised with the 
release cycle by 2.15.1. If you're crackful, the community should voice 
dissent straight away; if it doesn't, then you're accepted. By 2.15.4, 
you can only be vetoed for technical reasons (ie. those in GEP 10).

If you're a framework (library, "su"-framework, etc.) , then the above 
applies, but you should get yourself used by other modules. By 2.15.4, 
you could be vetoed for technical reasons (GEP 10), but in general if 
you have widespread adoption by maintainers then that is a de-facto 
acceptance by the community. On the other hand, if you haven't got 
yourself used by other modules, it begins to look like the 
service-as-implemented isn't really wanted in GNOME.

To summarise, the community makes an initial decision on applications 
and libaries straight away, but libraries also have to prove themselves 
as useful in-the-wild.

Is that correct, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Yours,

Andrew