Deedra Waters wrote:	[Mon Sep 12 2005, 02:11:35PM EDT]
>devrel has the people, and has even filled the rolls in the origional
>proposal.

Oh!  Sorry I didn't understand that initially.

>The objection from the people who started this initially, is that it
>gets too complicated, and involves too much red tape, and i agree with
>them. 

How many complaints has devrel dealt with from start to finish using 
the "new" model?  I'm trying to understand where the red tape is, what 
it is hindering, and how it has been tested so far.

IMHO some of the red tape is necessary for the process to be correct.  
Certainly it should be trimmed where possible without compromising the 
system, and I appreciate that's what you're wanting to do.  It's just 
a matter of determining which red tape can be cut and which can't.

>Yeah, i realize that people like checks and balances in the process, 
>but who says that there aren't checks and balances?  What i mean by 
>this is that The way devrel has always worked, and will continue to 
>work is that when it comes to final decision making, the majority of 
>devrel has always had the final say. I see this as a form of checks 
>and balances. If one person is out to do away with someone and 
>manages to convince the other 4 or 6 on the committee that it's 
>right, and the majority of devrel disagrees with the commitee then 
>it's not going to happen. 

You make a good point concerning the checks and balances inherently 
available in a voting system.  Nonetheless, you'll displease a lot of 
people by doing away with one of the core attributes of the proposal, 
so IMHO it would help to explain how it has hindered you so far.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer