Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:23:38
Message-Id: 42A4DB0E.30905@gentoo.org
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for
5 how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a
6 problem like this.
7
8 While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the
9 proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame.
10 So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before
11 the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this.
12
13 This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for
14 investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process
15 more transparent. This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly
16 splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation
17 was handled happens again.
18
19 The current proposal can be found here:
20
21 http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt
22
23 I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very
24 professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are
25 relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone
26 wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so).
27
28 Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to
29 make them more explicit:
30
31 - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
32 Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
33 intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
34 private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
35 public). Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
36 error in that regard.
37
38 - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing
39 so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision. Althoug the
40 terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a
41 rightful addendum.
42
43 - Evidence used must have the supporting context available. This
44 might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc. This is to
45 ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action
46 against a developer.
47
48 If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to
49 the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first
50 before changing the wording on the proposal.
51
52 Mike
53 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
54 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
55 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
56
57 iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0
58 rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI=
59 =6UDC
60 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
61 --
62 gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal Olivier Fisette <ribosome@g.o>