Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-devrel
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-devrel: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-devrel@g.o
From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Subject: Re: Proposal
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:

[Introductory material omitted]

>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt
>
> I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very
> professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are
> relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone
> wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so).
>

Please do.

> Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to
> make them more explicit:
>
>  - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
> public).  Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
> error in that regard.
>
Good point.  For the same reason a judge cannot reasonably hear an appeal 
of a decision the judge has participated in, an investigator cannot 
reasonably judge the evidence he himself has gathered.

>  - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing
> so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision.  Althoug the
> terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a
> rightful addendum.
>

That's better than the way I put it.

>  - Evidence used must have the supporting context available.  This
> might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc.  This is to
> ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action
> against a developer.
>

This is pretty analogous to the hearsay rule used in the legal system (at 
least in intent).  It enhances the confidence you have in the evidence's 
reliability, and at the same time presents somethint concrete to 
substantiate or rebut.

> If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to
> the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first
> before changing the wording on the proposal.
>
> Mike

I think these are all on target, and should be included.

Great work.

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCpOM3Qa6M3+I///cRApNOAKCssjpgDzjaXXm6ASrk+RGb5oEkfQCgtn+Z
XPAaxVDfMW3W3whPHyjG4hE=
=+8M8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list

References:
Proposal
-- Michael Tindal
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-devrel: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Proposal
Next by thread:
Re: Proposal
Previous by date:
Proposal
Next by date:
Re: Proposal


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-devrel mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.