freedesktop.org specification process

[Will Stephenson]

On Thursday 09 July 2009 22:19:59 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> Following up on the discussion about freedesktop.org at GCDS and the
> additional input on the mailing list, I wrote down a specification for the
> process how to manage freedesktop.org specifications. It's based on the
> consensus we built at GCDS plus the input which came from Aaron and others
> before and after the meetings.
>
> To bootstrap the process I wrote it down as a freedesktop.org specification
> following the proposed process. You can find the text at
> http://gitorious.org/~cornelius/xdg-specs/xdg-specs-spec0/blobs/master/spec
>ifications/SpecificationProcess/specification.txt
>
> Please have a look and comment.

* Could do with a spell check and s/it's/its/ as appropriate.

* "The GNOME and KDE communities have to take into account the needs and  
feedback of other communities as well"
  This needs more work.

* ### Specification Sources
  How and where will the intentions of the desktop projects be recorded?

* The sources for freedesktop.org specifications are hosted in a git 
repository at <http://gitorious.org/xdg-specs>.  

Perhaps mention that this is pending whether XDG.org will provide adequate git 
hosting.

* ### Namespaces for Development of new Interfaces
If an implementor intends to use a namespace under org.freedesktop to develop  
a new D-Bus interface specification, there has to be submitted a namespace 
specification stating the namespace and the intended use.

An _implementor_ choosing a namespace seems wrong - isn't this the job of the 
spec drafter?

* Generic namespace names should be only accepted, if there is a high chance 
of the interface under it being accepted as well.

Vague and everyone will think that their org.freedesktop.SlicedBread namespace 
will probably be expected.  Perhaps have a stricter condition for generic (but 
then how do you define 'generic') namespace names such as more than simple 
GNOME/KDE acceptance?

* Example specification metadata

mismatched <revision> tags :P

specversion and revnumber appear to be different words for the same thing..

HTH

Will
> The next step would be to work in your comments, and when this is done to
> merge it back to the main repository and get approval by the release teams.