Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted

[William Hubbs]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:25:55AM -0400, Douglas Dunn wrote:
> In my opinion the devrel project lead or perhaps have 3 leads but should at
> least be confirmed by the council, if that can happen and the lead and or
> leads can make sure that the other devrel members are upholding the intent
> of the coc.  It doesn't take a law degree to enforce the coc, maybe give
> individual devrel members the authority to give temporary punishments, but
> i think anything permanent should go to the council to at least confirm
> devrels suggestion of a permanent punishment.
 
If the council has to approve a major action devrel takes against a
developer, there is no point in that developer appealing to the council.

> But imo if the lead of devrel needs confirmed by the council, and the
> council has the power to remove the lead, and the final appeal goes to the
> council, i dont see much room for the possibility of abuse by devrel.

I don't see why the council couldn't remove the devrel lead if they felt
it necessary.

Here are some thoughts I have wrt this situation:

1. The QA and Devrel projects are directly accountable to the council.
This protects against abuse of power since the council can remove people
from these projects if they determine that power is being abused.

2. The leads of these projects should be selected by the projects like
any other project, but confirmed by the council.

3. Since the leads are confirmed by the council, I don't think it is
necessary for them to go back to the council for approval for actions
they take.

4. Both of these projects require unique skill sets that most developers
may not have, so I don't think electing members of these projects is a
good idea.

5. Any actions these projects take can be appealed to the council (This
follows from point 1).

Thoughts?

William