Hi, On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:18:30PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Lars Wirzenius, Stefano Zacchiroli and myself are trying to introduce > the concept of Debian Enhancement Proposals, Very good idea! I have some minor comments: > As the discussion progresses, the enhancement is assigned certain > states, as explaned below. s/explaned/explained/ Assuming that the number of DEPs will be significant, I think it would be a good idea to separate ACCEPTED DEPs into two groups, namely "historical" which nobody needs to read, because their text is included in some authorative document (policy, devref, whatever) and "current", which may be useful to read because they aren't included anywhere (DEP0 will probably stay there, for example). > If the drivers go missing in action, other people may step in and > courteously take over the driving position. People should also be allowed to help the drivers if they don't go MIA. ;-) Well, only if the current drivers allow them to, of course. I'd add a suggestion that during the discussion the URL of the DEP should be mentioned all the time. That means in every mailing list post, in the topic of an IRC channel (or in a message at the start of the discussion, if the channel topic is about much more than the DEP), etc. This should of course only be a suggestion, since the drivers aren't the people who control this. I agree with the comment that the initial announcement should mention the forum which will initially be used for discussing the DEP. Of course this may change, and in practice several media may be used simultaneously, but it's good to at least start at the same place. :-) Finally, about the comments that the announcement should be made to d-d-a. I think it would be good to mention that this is possible, but it shouldn't recommend it IMO. The idea I get about DEPs is that they aren't always important enough for d-d-a, and in general I'm very reluctant to make it a rule to post announcements there, because it should be a low-traffic mailinglist, and you never know how much traffic such a rule would generate. However, suggesting that it is an option that the drivers should think about is a good idea IMO. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature