| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
[Introductory material omitted] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very |
| 12 |
> professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are |
| 13 |
> relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone |
| 14 |
> wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Please do. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to |
| 20 |
> make them more explicit: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the |
| 23 |
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and |
| 24 |
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore |
| 25 |
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be |
| 26 |
> public). Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human |
| 27 |
> error in that regard. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
Good point. For the same reason a judge cannot reasonably hear an appeal |
| 30 |
of a decision the judge has participated in, an investigator cannot |
| 31 |
reasonably judge the evidence he himself has gathered. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing |
| 34 |
> so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision. Althoug the |
| 35 |
> terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a |
| 36 |
> rightful addendum. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
That's better than the way I put it. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> - Evidence used must have the supporting context available. This |
| 42 |
> might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc. This is to |
| 43 |
> ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action |
| 44 |
> against a developer. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
This is pretty analogous to the hearsay rule used in the legal system (at |
| 48 |
least in intent). It enhances the confidence you have in the evidence's |
| 49 |
reliability, and at the same time presents somethint concrete to |
| 50 |
substantiate or rebut. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to |
| 53 |
> the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first |
| 54 |
> before changing the wording on the proposal. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Mike |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I think these are all on target, and should be included. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Great work. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Regards, |
| 63 |
Ferris |
| 64 |
- -- |
| 65 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 66 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc) |
| 67 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 68 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
iD8DBQFCpOM3Qa6M3+I///cRApNOAKCssjpgDzjaXXm6ASrk+RGb5oEkfQCgtn+Z |
| 71 |
XPAaxVDfMW3W3whPHyjG4hE= |
| 72 |
=+8M8 |
| 73 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 74 |
-- |
| 75 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |
Archives