Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:52:32
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509070850150.6803@monster
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Paul Varner
1 I said from the beginning that I had not written up a proposal for it.
2 Why? Because i wanted some form of discussion first so that i could get
3 a feel for people's concerns and thoughts on it besides those who i've
4 already talked to. Proposals are great and all, but it helps when you
5 actually see what people expect first...
6 On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Paul Varner wrote:
7
8 > Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:51:12 -0500
9 > From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>
10 > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
11 > To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
12 > Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
13 >
14 > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:41 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote:
15 >> The devrel members who first approached me on this think that this is
16 >> too much red tape for something that 1, is literally probably going to
17 >> almost never be used 2, it's going to take too long to do anything with,
18 >> and take too long to get results that are going to make people happy,
19 >> and 3 most of them agreed to this policy because at the time it looked
20 >> like the best option. In looking back at it, it's not the best option,
21 >> so they want something less complicated.
22 >>
23 >
24 > 1. If it is almost never used, where is the extra red-tape?
25 > 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results?
26 > 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option?
27 >
28 >> The reality is that reguardless of what devrel decides to do people
29 >> aren't going to be happy.
30 >
31 > That one will always be true. However, if you have a well documented
32 > and followed process, those people are going to be on the fringes of the
33 > organization. If they are not, then something is probably wrong with the
34 > process and should be fixed.
35 >
36 > I thought that a lot of the reason for the recent changes were due to
37 > the perception that there were problems with the process. As I said in
38 > my first message, no was my gut reaction. A lot of the reason for that
39 > reaction is I don't see a clearly defined process being proposed in its
40 > place. I also am not seeing why this newest process isn't a workable
41 > process, other than complaints that it contains too much red-tape.
42 >
43 > Note: I'm not saying that there isn't too much red-tape and bureaucracy,
44 > just that I'm not seeing the evidence of it showing the reasoning behind
45 > the latest proposed changes.
46 >
47 > When it comes to the discipline process, I personally feel that is one
48 > place where we rally should make the effort to have our procedures
49 > documented and thought out. If enough developers have a bad perception
50 > about our disciplinary process, we are just hurting ourselves.
51 >
52 > Finally, I'm not a part of developer relations, so my opinions don't
53 > really matter when it comes time to vote on this. But I do want to
54 > thank you for taking the time be open and to listen to my point of view.
55 >
56 > Regards,
57 > Paul
58 >
59 >
60
61 --
62 Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
63 dmwaters@g.o
64 Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
65
66 --
67 gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>