List Archive: gentoo-devrel
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:38 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Paul Varner wrote:
> > My gut reaction to reading this proposal was no! While I can see a need
> > for reducing the number of people involved with a complaint, I firmly
> > feel that in order to ensure fairness in the complaint process that
> > there needs to be checks and balances in place. The recent changes to
> > split the investigative from the judical side of developer relations and
> > make everything transparent as possible does much to accomplish this.
> > I strongly feel that moving back to a small committee would be a step
> > backwards in that respect.
> Why can't a small committee be fair? Where are the checks and balances
> in the "new" structure? I see one group investigating, another deciding
> the punishment, but no insurance that the latter group won't go
> overboard with punishment or give people a slap on the wrist for a major
each committee is supposed to be a check on the other, plus there is the
council as a check to the whole devrel process if it's needed (which it
hopefully shouldnt be)
> I agree that transparency is a good thing, but I disagree that
> increasing the bureaucracy does much besides increase the time necessary
> to get anything done.
maybe, but i thought the idea wasnt setup just to address a 'check' system,
but also to keep things impartial ... it's hard for people who do the
'investigating' to stay completely partial (look at the fun discussions that
have happened in the past), so there is the other group to assess the
findings and all that jazz with a fresh imparital eye on things
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list