GLEP Purpose and Guidelines
Peter Volkov wrote:
> ? ???, 17/06/2008 ? 09:48 +0200, Tiziano Müller ?????:
> ?Your GLEP describes only two possible types: Technical and
> At the same time type of your GLEP is informational.
I can't use the new types since I have to write the GLEP in terms of the
current GLEP system/types.
> this could be? What happens with informational GLEPs?
The current ones remain as they are. New ones should be one of the mentioned
> Why did you dropped motivation from the body while mentioning it in
There must be a motivation. But the motivation could also be made clear in
the abstract. In other words: There must not be a separate
section "motivation" to make the motivation clear.
> ?What about previous copyright claim?
What do you mean? (yes, in my proposal a "Credits" section is needed)
> Actually this is just a beginning of questions and generally it feels
> this glep is not finished
true, by intention. Just keep them coming.
> and should borrow more ideas from the current
> GLEP 1. It's even better to update GLEP 1 instead for writing new one...
No. A GLEP should not be updated (besides trivial updates). That's one of
the things I'm trying to make clear here. It's not good at all to have the
GLEPs describing policies, they should only be used to propose/describe
changes to our policies (example: even if some country's law system is
based on the roman right you also don't get a copy of the roman right and a
book with changes made to it if you want to look at the current right).
In other words: GLEPs should only be patches or changesets.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list