On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:16 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 01:37:33PM CDT]
> > You make a good point concerning the checks and balances inherently
> > available in a voting system. Nonetheless, you'll displease a lot of
> > people by doing away with one of the core attributes of the proposal,
> > so IMHO it would help to explain how it has hindered you so far.
> One thing that I've noticed about devrel in the past is that a lot of
> the interactions between devrel members (especially recruiters) happen
> on irc, not on mailing lists or bugs. The result is a situation like
> the current one (I suspect), where somebody in devrel proposes something
> big with little explanation, because many of the people involved already
> know what all of the issues are. The problem, of course, is that then a
> lot of people are both taken completely by surprise (because they aren't
> an integral part of that specialized community) and have no good way to
> find out what's been happening. If this relatively new enforcement
> system isn't working, then of course it should be fixed, but the
> non-cognoscenti are going to need much more information before any fix
> can appear to be a rational solution.
The new system hasn't been needed yet.
> Personally, I'm still fond of my long-ago suggestion that the judgement
> part of the process should be handled by a randomly-selected group of
> devs, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that such a proposal is
Interesting. Would you think of this as randomly selected from a group
of self-designated devs who are willing to serve, or would you make
"willingness" implicit in being a dev, so it's sort of like jury duty,
I think I personally would want to require that one devrel member sit on
the judgment board, but otherwise, why not?
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel)