1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 23:18 -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:51:12PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:41 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote: |
4 |
> > > The devrel members who first approached me on this think that this is |
5 |
> > > too much red tape for something that 1, is literally probably going to |
6 |
> > > almost never be used 2, it's going to take too long to do anything with, |
7 |
> > > and take too long to get results that are going to make people happy, |
8 |
> > > and 3 most of them agreed to this policy because at the time it looked |
9 |
> > > like the best option. In looking back at it, it's not the best option, |
10 |
> > > so they want something less complicated. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > 1. If it is almost never used, where is the extra red-tape? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> The point is not taking forever and a day to respond when things do |
16 |
> happen. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I see nothing in the current policy that prevents immediate response. |
20 |
In a "critical" situation, devrel and infrastructure have the right to |
21 |
act immediately. As far as the investigative phase goes, it is limited |
22 |
to a maximum of 30 days. There is nothing that states that it can't be |
23 |
completed sooner. |
24 |
|
25 |
> > 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Because there will be endless meetings and discussions. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
I must be blind, because I fail to see the endless meetings and |
31 |
discussons. I see an ivestigative phase where people work to collect |
32 |
the facts involved. I see one meeting at the end of that phase to |
33 |
determine if the complainant has merit. Personally, I'm willing to forgo |
34 |
that meeting and leave it up to the investigative team to make that |
35 |
decision. |
36 |
|
37 |
I then see a meeting where a panel looks at all of the evidence |
38 |
collected, asks for testimony if neccessary to reach a decision, and |
39 |
makes a decision. |
40 |
|
41 |
Finally, the whole process can be appealed to the Gentoo Council which |
42 |
can result in a third meeting. |
43 |
|
44 |
The only part that I see that can cause endless meetings is the section |
45 |
on challenges. Personally, I would remove that section and if someone |
46 |
has issue with the people on the board, they can bring that up on appeal |
47 |
to the Gentoo Council. |
48 |
|
49 |
> > 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option? |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> |
52 |
> People took a step back from trying to just do whatever it takes to |
53 |
> please the handful of "devrel == stalin" folks |
54 |
|
55 |
I'm going to ignore the invokation of Godwin's Law and state flat out |
56 |
that I have never thought that "devrel == stalin". However, I did see |
57 |
issues with the process that were made very apparent. The main issues |
58 |
being the lack of documentation, no set process to follow, and openness |
59 |
of the process. |
60 |
|
61 |
The purpose of making the changes was to address the issues with the |
62 |
process. As I said earlier, you will never make everyone happy and that |
63 |
should not be the goal. The goal is to have a documented open process |
64 |
that is as fair and balanced as possible. |
65 |
|
66 |
Regards, |
67 |
Paul |
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |