/[dep]/web/deps/dep0.mdwn

Diff of /web/deps/dep0.mdwn

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 80 by zack,
Sun Jul 26 17:29:41 2009 UTC
+revision 81 by zack,
Sun Jul 26 18:01:18 2009 UTC
 Line 37 
 easily assess whether they should use sa
  because it's difficult to know whether it adjusts to the consensus
  reached during the discussion period.
- As our normative documents rely on wide adoption of a practice before
+ Our normative documents rely on wide adoption of a practice before
  documenting it, and adopters can be reluctant to make use of it before a
- clear indication that a practice has some consensus behind it, this
+ clear indication that a practice has some consensus behind it. This
  creates a hard to break loop that this process hopes to alleviate, by
  providing a mechanism to reflect the status of each proposal, including
  whether it has reached consensus or not.
 Line 175 
 A DEP can become REJECTED in the followi
    explicitly acknowledge so
  * there are no modifications to a DEP in DRAFT state for 6 months or
    more
- * there is no consensus that the implementation of a DEP in CANDIDATE
+ * there is no consensus either on the draft text or on the fact that
-   state is working satisfactorily
+   the implementation is working satisfactorily
  #### ACCEPTED -> OBSOLETE: no longer relevant
 Line 190 
 A DEP can become OBSOLETE when it is no
  In one of these states, no further actions are needed.
+ It is recommended that DEPs in one of these states carry a reason
+ describing why they have moved to such a state.
  What the drivers should do
  --------------------------
- The additional, hopefully small, burden of the DEP process falls on the
+ The only additional burden of the DEP process falls on the shoulders of its
- shoulders of its drivers. They have to take care of all the practical
+ drivers. They have to take care of all the practical work of writing
- work of writing and maintaining the draft, so that everyone else can
+ and maintaining the text, so that everyone else can just continue
- just continue discussing things over e-mail as before.  Driver's burden
+ discussing things as before.  Driver's burden can be summarized as:
- can be summarized as:
- * Write the draft.
+ * Write the draft text and update it during discussion.
- * Update the draft during discussion.
  * Determine when (rough) consensus in discussion has been reached.
  * Implement, or find volunteers to implement.
  * Determine when consensus of implementation success has been reached,
    when the testing of the available implementation has been satisfactory.
  * Update the DEP with progress updates at suitable intervals, until the
-   DEP has been accepted.
+   DEP has been accepted (or rejected).
  If the drivers go missing in action, other people may step in and
  courteously take over the driving position.
+ **Note**: the drivers can of course participate in the discussion as
+ everybody else, but have no special authority to impose their ideas to
+ others. <q>DEP gives pencils, not hammers.</q>
  Format and content
  ------------------
-Line 231 
 start with a paragraph of the following
+Line 236 
 start with a paragraph of the following
  * Abstract: a short paragraph (formatted as the long Description in
    debian/control)
+ (Additionally, REJECTED DEPs can carry a "Reason:" field describing
+ why they were rejected.)
  The rest of the file is free form. If the DEP is kept in a wiki, using
  its markup syntax is, of course, a good idea.
-Line 251 
 License
+Line 259 
 License
  The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free. You may choose the
  license freely, but the "Expat" license is recommended. The
- official URL for it is http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt and
+ official URL for it is <http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt> and
  the license text is:
      Copyright (c) <year>  <your names>
-Line 275 
 the license text is:
+Line 283 
 the license text is:
      TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
      SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
- The justification for this recommendation is that this license is the
+ The justification for this recommendation is that this license is one
- most permissive of the well-known licenses. By using this license, it is
+ of the most permissive of the well-known licenses. By using this
- easy to copy parts of the DEP to other places, such as documentation for
+ license, it is easy to copy parts of the DEP to other places, such as
- Debian development or embedded in individual packages.
+ documentation for Debian development or embedded in individual
+ packages.
-Line 345 
 Changes
+Line 354 
 Changes
  -------
  * 2009-07-26:
-   [ Stefano Zacchiroli ]
+   [ Zack, Dato, Lars]
    * Re-word state description: describe separately states and
      transitions.
    * Rename "DROPPED" status to "REJECTED"; inhibit "resurrection" of
      REJECTED DEPs.
-   [ Stefano Zacchiroli, Lars Wirzenius ]
    * mention that dep.debian.net is the central archival place
+   * stress that DEPs give no special powers to drivers, in the "driver
+     role" section
  * 2008-06-12:
    [ Lars Wirzenius ]

 Legend:



Removed from v.80
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.81
 Legend:



Removed from v.80
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.81
-Removed from v.80
+Added in v.81

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5