On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 23:18 -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:51:12PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:41 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > > The devrel members who first approached me on this think that this is
> > > too much red tape for something that 1, is literally probably going to
> > > almost never be used 2, it's going to take too long to do anything with,
> > > and take too long to get results that are going to make people happy,
> > > and 3 most of them agreed to this policy because at the time it looked
> > > like the best option. In looking back at it, it's not the best option,
> > > so they want something less complicated.
> > >
> > 1. If it is almost never used, where is the extra red-tape?
> The point is not taking forever and a day to respond when things do
I see nothing in the current policy that prevents immediate response.
In a "critical" situation, devrel and infrastructure have the right to
act immediately. As far as the investigative phase goes, it is limited
to a maximum of 30 days. There is nothing that states that it can't be
> > 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results?
> Because there will be endless meetings and discussions.
I must be blind, because I fail to see the endless meetings and
discussons. I see an ivestigative phase where people work to collect
the facts involved. I see one meeting at the end of that phase to
determine if the complainant has merit. Personally, I'm willing to forgo
that meeting and leave it up to the investigative team to make that
I then see a meeting where a panel looks at all of the evidence
collected, asks for testimony if neccessary to reach a decision, and
makes a decision.
Finally, the whole process can be appealed to the Gentoo Council which
can result in a third meeting.
The only part that I see that can cause endless meetings is the section
on challenges. Personally, I would remove that section and if someone
has issue with the people on the board, they can bring that up on appeal
to the Gentoo Council.
> > 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option?
> People took a step back from trying to just do whatever it takes to
> please the handful of "devrel == stalin" folks
I'm going to ignore the invokation of Godwin's Law and state flat out
that I have never thought that "devrel == stalin". However, I did see
issues with the process that were made very apparent. The main issues
being the lack of documentation, no set process to follow, and openness
of the process.
The purpose of making the changes was to address the issues with the
process. As I said earlier, you will never make everyone happy and that
should not be the goal. The goal is to have a documented open process
that is as fair and balanced as possible.
email@example.com mailing list