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 |