Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:06:56
Message-Id: 20050907020647.GA31259@cerberus.oppresses.us
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 01:35:15AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:54:01 -0400 Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o> wrote: > | No, mostly it does a lot to accomplish castrating devrel and making > | it ineffective. > | > | We have a working council now, that means if somebody feels devrel > | is acting unfairly or not being open enough there's a body to appeal > | to. > > So you are aiming for a trigger-happy devrel that tries its hardest to > kick off anyone it feels like, whilst relying upon the council to keep > it honest?
No, I am aiming for a rational devrel structure instead of just adding three million layers of red tape that don't accomplish anything. As usual you'd like to spin it as devrel runs around suspending people left and right and needs to be on a short leash; we've had very few incidents requiring disciplinary action and it's never been taken lightly. I don't really care either way, I'm not actively involved in devrel anymore and it's just not my problem, but I'd rather not see it made ineffective because a few people are scared devrel might bring the hammer down for their behavior. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>