Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of AddingPackages

Timestamp:

08/20/09 02:50:51 (4 years ago)

Author:

duncan (IP: 79.78.244.40)

Comment:

also link to release team

AddingPackages

@@ -63 +63 @@
 The initial proposal email should link to the wiki version so that reviewers can always find a complete account of the current proposal (rather than having to re-read a full mailing list discussion thread).
 
-It is the proposer(s), not the reviewers, who are in charge of updates to the proposal, including recording open issues and objections. In contentious cases, members of the [wiki:Members#Steering Committee steering committee] may assist in recording reviewers concerns and objections in the proposal wiki.[[#RationaleUpdatingProposal note-3.3]]
+It is the proposer(s), not the reviewers, who are in charge of updates to the proposal, including recording open issues and objections. In contentious cases, members of the [wiki:Members#SteeringCommittee steering committee] may assist in recording reviewers concerns and objections in the proposal wiki.[[#RationaleUpdatingProposal note-3.3]]
 
 == Deadlines ==
@@ -72 +72 @@
  * A deadline for discussion on proposals for the next major release. [[#RationaleDeadlines note-4.2]]
 
-The exact dates are set by the release team with the aim of giving enough time to integrate new packages before a release and giving enough time to discuss new packages. The release team should announce and publicise these dates sufficiently far in advance. [[#RationaleDeadlines note-4.3]]
+The exact dates are set by the [wiki:Members#ReleaseTeam release team] with the aim of giving enough time to integrate new packages before a release and giving enough time to discuss new packages. The release team should announce and publicise these dates sufficiently far in advance. [[#RationaleDeadlines note-4.3]]
 
 == Acceptance ==
@@ -248 +248 @@
 == A protocol for consensus ==
 
-The protocol involves a series of stages of discussion on the libraries mailing list. At each stage there is a "call for consensus" from a member [wiki:Members#Steering Committee steering committee]. If there is consensus then we are done. If not, then we move to the next stage.
+The protocol involves a series of stages of discussion on the libraries mailing list. At each stage there is a "call for consensus" from a member [wiki:Members#SteeringCommittee steering committee]. If there is consensus then we are done. If not, then we move to the next stage.
 
  1. The first stage is presenting the proposal followed by open group discussion. This stage lasts long enough to give everyone the opportunity to send in their review comments. There follows a call for consensus.
@@ -303 +303 @@
 As stated in the introduction, the policy described in this document may be amended by further agreement of the libraries mailing list. The current version you see above includes all the current amendments. This section lists the history of amendments that have been made, along with links to the mailing list threads where they were discussed and agreed.
 
- * The original version was written and reviewed by the [wiki:Members#Steering Committee steering committee]: Adam Wick, Duncan Coutts, Iavor Diatchki, Isaac Dupree, Johan Tibell and Thomas Schilling.
+ * The original version was written and reviewed by the [wiki:Members#SteeringCommittee steering committee]: Adam Wick, Duncan Coutts, Iavor Diatchki, Isaac Dupree, Johan Tibell and Thomas Schilling.
  * There have not yet been any amendments.