| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:38 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Paul Varner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > My gut reaction to reading this proposal was no! While I can see a need |
| 4 |
> > for reducing the number of people involved with a complaint, I firmly |
| 5 |
> > feel that in order to ensure fairness in the complaint process that |
| 6 |
> > there needs to be checks and balances in place. The recent changes to |
| 7 |
> > split the investigative from the judical side of developer relations and |
| 8 |
> > make everything transparent as possible does much to accomplish this. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I strongly feel that moving back to a small committee would be a step |
| 11 |
> > backwards in that respect. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Why can't a small committee be fair? Where are the checks and balances |
| 14 |
> in the "new" structure? I see one group investigating, another deciding |
| 15 |
> the punishment, but no insurance that the latter group won't go |
| 16 |
> overboard with punishment or give people a slap on the wrist for a major |
| 17 |
> problem. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
each committee is supposed to be a check on the other, plus there is the |
| 20 |
council as a check to the whole devrel process if it's needed (which it |
| 21 |
hopefully shouldnt be) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I agree that transparency is a good thing, but I disagree that |
| 24 |
> increasing the bureaucracy does much besides increase the time necessary |
| 25 |
> to get anything done. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
maybe, but i thought the idea wasnt setup just to address a 'check' system, |
| 28 |
but also to keep things impartial ... it's hard for people who do the |
| 29 |
'investigating' to stay completely partial (look at the fun discussions that |
| 30 |
have happened in the past), so there is the other group to assess the |
| 31 |
findings and all that jazz with a fresh imparital eye on things |
| 32 |
-mike |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |
Archives