1 |
When this policy was agreed on, a lot of us just wanted to make people |
2 |
happy to stop us from being nailed every time we breathed. i'm not going |
3 |
to say all of devrel felt that way, but most of them did. |
4 |
I'm not going to say wether that was the right or wrong reason to go |
5 |
with this, but that's what happened. |
6 |
|
7 |
I'd also say for 1 that the proposal that's currently in place isn't bad |
8 |
if gentoo was 10 times the size it is now. It's not that large however, |
9 |
and i think that for something that's this size, that the current |
10 |
proposal is a bit overkill. I'm not even suggesting trashing the whole |
11 |
document, just changing it slightly. |
12 |
|
13 |
As for the endless meetings, dispite 3 meetings that may be listed |
14 |
there, if it goes anything like the meetings on top of meetings we had |
15 |
to even agree to this process, there are going to be a lot more then |
16 |
just the 3 or 4 just so that we can hash and rehash things. This makes |
17 |
us a lot less productive. Meetings aren't bad, but there's productive, |
18 |
and there's just plain crazy. |
19 |
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Paul Varner wrote: |
20 |
|
21 |
> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:56:35 -0500 |
22 |
> From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o> |
23 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
24 |
> To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
25 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc |
26 |
> |
27 |
> On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 23:18 -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
28 |
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:51:12PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: |
29 |
>>> On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:41 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote: |
30 |
>>>> The devrel members who first approached me on this think that this is |
31 |
>>>> too much red tape for something that 1, is literally probably going to |
32 |
>>>> almost never be used 2, it's going to take too long to do anything with, |
33 |
>>>> and take too long to get results that are going to make people happy, |
34 |
>>>> and 3 most of them agreed to this policy because at the time it looked |
35 |
>>>> like the best option. In looking back at it, it's not the best option, |
36 |
>>>> so they want something less complicated. |
37 |
>>>> |
38 |
>>> |
39 |
>>> 1. If it is almost never used, where is the extra red-tape? |
40 |
>> |
41 |
>> The point is not taking forever and a day to respond when things do |
42 |
>> happen. |
43 |
>> |
44 |
> |
45 |
> I see nothing in the current policy that prevents immediate response. |
46 |
> In a "critical" situation, devrel and infrastructure have the right to |
47 |
> act immediately. As far as the investigative phase goes, it is limited |
48 |
> to a maximum of 30 days. There is nothing that states that it can't be |
49 |
> completed sooner. |
50 |
> |
51 |
>>> 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results? |
52 |
>> |
53 |
>> Because there will be endless meetings and discussions. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
> |
56 |
> I must be blind, because I fail to see the endless meetings and |
57 |
> discussons. I see an ivestigative phase where people work to collect |
58 |
> the facts involved. I see one meeting at the end of that phase to |
59 |
> determine if the complainant has merit. Personally, I'm willing to forgo |
60 |
> that meeting and leave it up to the investigative team to make that |
61 |
> decision. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> I then see a meeting where a panel looks at all of the evidence |
64 |
> collected, asks for testimony if neccessary to reach a decision, and |
65 |
> makes a decision. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> Finally, the whole process can be appealed to the Gentoo Council which |
68 |
> can result in a third meeting. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> The only part that I see that can cause endless meetings is the section |
71 |
> on challenges. Personally, I would remove that section and if someone |
72 |
> has issue with the people on the board, they can bring that up on appeal |
73 |
> to the Gentoo Council. |
74 |
> |
75 |
>>> 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option? |
76 |
>>> |
77 |
>> |
78 |
>> People took a step back from trying to just do whatever it takes to |
79 |
>> please the handful of "devrel == stalin" folks |
80 |
> |
81 |
> I'm going to ignore the invokation of Godwin's Law and state flat out |
82 |
> that I have never thought that "devrel == stalin". However, I did see |
83 |
> issues with the process that were made very apparent. The main issues |
84 |
> being the lack of documentation, no set process to follow, and openness |
85 |
> of the process. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> The purpose of making the changes was to address the issues with the |
88 |
> process. As I said earlier, you will never make everyone happy and that |
89 |
> should not be the goal. The goal is to have a documented open process |
90 |
> that is as fair and balanced as possible. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> Regards, |
93 |
> Paul |
94 |
> |
95 |
|
96 |
-- |
97 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
98 |
dmwaters@g.o |
99 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
100 |
|
101 |
-- |
102 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |