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

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/19/2013 10:43 PM, Petteri R￤ty wrote:
> On 19.6.2013 23.18, hasufell wrote:
>> While I appreciate devrel being more active in serious situations
>> (I actually proposed that in another thread), I question the way
>> Devrel is constituted.
>>
>> How was devrel formed? Who started it? What's the procedure of
>> getting in?
>>
>
> The project is old:
>
> revision 1.1 date: 2003-07-14 00:49:03 +0300;  author: seemant;
> state: Exp; first version of project description page
>
> While I have been here for a better part of the decade, older farts
> (in dev time) are needed to comment on who started it.
>
>>
>> What is a possible solution? Let the council elect all members.
>> That way the power still comes from the dev community, although
>> they do not vote devrel directly. The council should vote
>> anonymously, so that no connection between council member and
>> elected devrel member can be drawn which could otherwise affect
>> the election of the council. This system should prevent people
>> from thinking two steps ahead when voting the council.
>>
>
> The council can already do that if they so choose. Granted if this
> process was made explicit it could have some influence on the
> turnover. In practice so far oversight has not been a problem
> (though since for quite a few years I have been part of both bodies
> the two have been quite connected).
>

If they choose... that means the current form of control over devrel
is only of a _reactive_ nature. That nature is also necessary, but
that is not how "control" is defined in the context I was explaining
in the first post.

What happens if power has been abused and damage is already done? The
council can just pick up the pieces then, revert decisions (if
possible) and try to deescalate.
Then people will ask... who is responsible? Why was there no explicit
election?
That might even lead to devrel losing respect. People will think they
just have that power because they came first.
It's not just about saying retroactively that someone wasn't fit for
devrel after he messed up, it's about saying who IS fit. Then people
know why that person got that kind of authority.

Also... we still don't have any rotation, except when devs resign from
that project.

Another thing: what do we do if devrel blocks actions against it's own
members? Because that's what gentoo projects have partly evolved
into... a group of buddies. I don't have much of a problem with that
in general, as it can improve effectivenes from some standpoints, but
this is not about a regular project.
I don't even claim that current devrel is not fit or that they just
form their group of buddies, but why should we not try to minimize
those possibilities?

If we want them to use the sledgehammer, it should be clear who gets
that sledgehammer and why. Make it explicit, rule out uncertainties.
Rotate that role, so people don't lose focus.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRwiV9AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzxscH/i4IERpirzDCmImBvJn8y8J+
j6gn0y/VrP8D9luOw5G3w3Q9kdODYzc4qMPNowu4TKsDGQ5SDcJFCJ6lXYIVba/7
Ac6mdKTZ1E7itxvYj14cShnnEZo+iv8xg3vO2ShUCx/cyi97eS2kqvSb91AUS2DK
4bqZ686S0ZElXbEdiycmElEQVnEU86rTJF9P9fiDVzMouh8E7fYPK0HJKG6X0Oq0
SMbXSJnDGDzZ2CiV+7nQKXIlvcA+RpPZlKxvUeT7nB4b6evjGKLNtGubl63j4/h+
nUwOupFfZRvJ3P7HXRuhVssD++NOm4NWh5rRvm3q9l8G5oj4If1yumq/MJDxa24=
=FoHI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----