On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:42:18AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 16:42 Thu 08 Nov , Wernfried Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:05:07AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time
> > > period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range
> > > from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require
> > > lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the
> > > council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)
> > I like the spirit, but I'm not sure how feasible this is in practice.
> > In any case, they should be documented (e.g. sent to some private list
> > where the lead and council can see it).
> I agree that it would be infeasible if this were a regular occurrence.
> My and Ferris's expectations were that it would be fairly rare, but we
> don't have much real-world data to bear that out. Could you share some
> from your experience with the original proctors?
I think things have cooled down since that time, but during the weeks
the proctors actually were in effect some people were warned to behave
nicely (btw, this is something that i think should also be done in the
new approach before doing nastier stuff).
I'm not sure if they would have been approved within the 12 hour
timeframe. Even if it (hopefully) doesn't happen often, i guess
depending on who the lead is and how regulary he/she checks in, the
time limit may pass. Hence i suggested doing something else
(e.g. sending it to a list for peer review (e.g. other members of the
team and council)).
This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums,
we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it
has worked quite well so far there.
HTH & cheers,
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org