1 |
Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:41:21 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
4 |
>> 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group |
5 |
>> and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues |
6 |
>> with devrel are taken to). |
7 |
> |
8 |
> i have yet to see this being necessary. the one or two times there was |
9 |
> a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time and |
10 |
> cleanly resolved. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> i.e. it isnt a problem |
13 |
|
14 |
There's also a practical problem in such a restriction. DevRel is |
15 |
understaffed. I've seen observations to the effect that most developers |
16 |
aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in |
17 |
reference to the conflict resolution subgroup, and by the nature of the |
18 |
problem, this isn't likely to change. |
19 |
|
20 |
It's also quite true that those interested in the admin aspects including |
21 |
conflict resolution are likely to be drawn to both devrel and council. |
22 |
Based on the above, we're already picking from a limited subset. Do we |
23 |
/really/ want to restrict it further? /Can/ we restrict it further, |
24 |
without severe practical effects due to restricting the number of folks |
25 |
willing to run for either council or devrel, if not both? Will the result |
26 |
be a drop in the quality of candidates willing to run for either team? If |
27 |
there's five slots and only six people running, how much of a choice is |
28 |
there, really? What about if only three accept their nominations? Will |
29 |
that be the result, particularly if the other suggestions are implemented |
30 |
as well, and people are elected for devrel-conflictres directly? |
31 |
|
32 |
In an infinitely large group, with an infinite number of potential |
33 |
candidates and thus an infinite number willing to run, the idea has |
34 |
merit. As the group gets smaller, dangers appear. Is the group of Gentoo |
35 |
devels small enough, and self-selected enough against interest in this |
36 |
area, that the dangers cancel out or worse the positives? That I don't |
37 |
know, as I'm not a dev and certainly not on devrel or council, with the |
38 |
experience to say, but from various comments I've read over the years from |
39 |
those qualified to know, it's at minimum, a close call. |
40 |
|
41 |
Would anybody with better insight into these things care to comment? |
42 |
Perhaps I read into the various comments something that wasn't there, or |
43 |
maybe those making the comments were ill-informed themselves, or it may be |
44 |
that the problems are already corrected and it'd be fine now. I don't |
45 |
know, but I'm worried about it, thus this post. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
49 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
50 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |