Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the
investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also
think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of
managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:

> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0500
> From: Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o>
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@g.o
> To: gentoo-devrel@g.o
> Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for
> how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a
> problem like this.
>
> While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the
> proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame.
> So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before
> the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this.
>
> This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for
> investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process
> more transparent.  This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly
> splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation
> was handled happens again.
>
> The current proposal can be found here:
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
>   - 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.
>
>   - 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.
>
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0
> rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI=
> =6UDC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@g.o
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list