1 |
devrel has the people, and has even filled the rolls in the origional |
2 |
proposal. |
3 |
|
4 |
The objection from the people who started this initially, is that it |
5 |
gets too complicated, and involves too much red tape, and i agree with |
6 |
them. Yeah, i realize that people like checks and balances in the |
7 |
process, but who says that there aren't checks and balances? What i |
8 |
mean by this is that The way devrel has always worked, and will continue |
9 |
to work is that when it comes to final decision making, the majority of |
10 |
devrel has always had the final say. I see this as a form of checks and |
11 |
balances. If one person is out to do away with someone and manages to |
12 |
convince the other 4 or 6 on the committee that it's right, and the |
13 |
majority of devrel disagrees with the commitee then it's not going to |
14 |
happen. |
15 |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Aron Griffis wrote: |
16 |
|
17 |
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:41:47 -0400 |
18 |
> From: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> |
19 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
20 |
> To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
21 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Hi Mike, |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Mike Doty wrote: [Wed Sep 07 2005, 12:16:29AM EDT] |
26 |
>> In the end, I've read 20+ emails today on this thread, which we at |
27 |
>> best "I don't like this", and at worst, "devrel is a conspiracy!", |
28 |
>> yet no one has offered a solution. Put up or shut up. My |
29 |
>> recommendation would be to merge the two groups, by expanding the |
30 |
>> panel of "judges" from 3-5 to 5-7. This cuts out a lot of the red |
31 |
>> tape and improves communication while still retaining a similar |
32 |
>> number of people involved. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I'm confused by this paragraph. Nearly all the contributors to the |
35 |
> thread provided arguments to back up their position. If some of the |
36 |
> contributors sound shocked, I think it's because they perceive |
37 |
> dmwaters' suggestion as gutting the recent proposal which they believe |
38 |
> was an important step to making devrel more effective. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> The argument presented by dmwaters seems to be: |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Two committees is unnecessarily complicated and requires more |
43 |
> people than we have. One committee per complaint should be |
44 |
> sufficient, and will be as impartial as possible, to the extent |
45 |
> that it can. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> The rebuttal seems to be: |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Two committees, investigative and judicial, per complaint is |
50 |
> necessary for checks and balances. Going back to one committee |
51 |
> reverts the progress made by the previous proposal. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> If I'm missing something, please let me know. I don't want to leave |
54 |
> out a possibly-critical argument in my personal evaluation. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Personally I'm in agreement with the rebuttal. From my perspective, |
57 |
> the problem with one committee is that it's possible for a single |
58 |
> charismatic, strong-willed individual to carry the group to their |
59 |
> preferred conclusion. Separating investigation and judgment doesn't |
60 |
> solve that problem completely, but it helps to mitigate it. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> If devrel has trouble staffing both committees from its ranks, then |
63 |
> IMHO a call should be put out to request devs to temporary fill |
64 |
> a role. Has that been done, and I missed it? |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Regards, |
67 |
> Aron |
68 |
> |
69 |
> -- |
70 |
> Aron Griffis |
71 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
72 |
> |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
77 |
dmwaters@g.o |
78 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |