From: Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 20:35:41 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: Doc: CG: remove policies now on GOP website.
X-Git-Tag: release/2.15.10-1^2~6
X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7e50c9a4ff52443dc6b7085ac6f0848076a8052c;p=lilypond.git

Doc: CG: remove policies now on GOP website.
---

diff --git a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
index fca8f01dea..b9dcbecd88 100644
--- a/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
+++ b/Documentation/contributor/administration.itexi
@@ -360,48 +360,6 @@ away.  This is not good.
 
 (prep: 2 hours.  discuss: 10 hours)
 
-@item @strong{Future release policy}:
-(how) should we change any policies pertaining to releases? Should
-an undocumented new feature count as release-blocking?
-
-(prep: 1 hour.  discuss: 15 hours)
-
-@item @strong{lilypond-hackers mailing list}:
-Should we have a private mailing list for senior developers?  If
-so, who should be on it?
-
-(prep: 2 hours+3 weeks.  discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Hackers B}:
-
-
-@item @strong{Git repository(s)}:
-We currently have a web/ branch in our main repo; this seems
-misleading to new developers. More generally, should we have
-branches that aren't related to the master? i.e. should we
-restrict a git branch to code which is an actual "branch" of
-development? Also, some of our code (notably the windows and osx
-lilypad) isn't in a git repository at all.
-We can add new repositories very easily; should make repositories
-like
-@example
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/gub.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/lilypad.git
-git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond/misc.git
-@end example
-? More information here:
-@uref{http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=980}
-
-(prep: 2 hours.  discuss: 10 hours)
-
-@item @strong{Roadmap of future development}:
-Many projects have a roadmap of planned (or desired) future work.
-Should we use one? If so, what should go on it, bearing in mind
-our volunteer status? Is there any way of having a roadmap that
-isn't vaporware?
-
-(prep: 1 hour.  discuss: 5 hours)
-
 @item @strong{Official links to other organizations?}:
 There's something called the "software freedom conservancy", and
 in general, there's a bunch of "umbrella organizations". Joining
@@ -411,14 +369,6 @@ schools, etc.
 
 (prep: 2 hours.  discuss: 5 hours)
 
-@item @strong{Mailing lists}:
-We currently have a mix of official GNU mailing lists and lilynet
-lists. Is there a strong rationale for having separate mailing
-list servers? Why not pick one place, and put all our lists there?
-(or at least, all "permanent" lists?)
-
-(prep: 1 hour.  discuss: 5 hours)
-
 @item @strong{Issue tracking with google code}:
 We use the google issue tracker, but this means that we are
 relying on a commercial entity for a large part of our
@@ -443,15 +393,6 @@ want to do?
 
 (prep: 1 hours+2 weeks.  discuss: 5 hours)
 
-@item @strong{Authorship in source files}:
-Our documentation currently does not attempt to track individual
-authors of each file, while our source code makes a confused and
-jumbled attempt to track this. A number of guidelines for F/OSS
-projects explicitly recommends _not_ tracking this in individual
-files, since the code repository will track that for you.
-
-(prep: 2 hours.  discuss: 15 hours)
-
 @item @strong{Clarity for sponsorships}:
 We currently do not advertize bounties and sponsorships on the
 webpage.  How much advertising do we want, and what type?