-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 14-08-2011 11:06, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders
> for QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the Council can
> ensure that the team is active or either force some activity in case
> the current leader slacks big time. Furthermore, right now there is
> the potential problem for the leader to only allow new members that
> he likes so they can vote for him on next elections. Membership and
> voting actions should not be related in these teams. The leader will
> still have control over the new members but Council will do the
> voting ( community will provide feedback ofc )
As I've expressed already a few times before, I strongly object to this
idea. My reasons are the following:
* I like and agree with the way GLEP39 keeps projects separate from the
council and how it allows for open, competing and independent projects.
* As such, I disagree with the idea the council may nominate leads for
whatever projects - this doesn't apply to council sponsored teams
created to deal with specific issues (a GLEP39 reform team would be an
* I know it's controversial, but I don't think all Gentoo teams and
projects were born "equal". I have the same respect for all, but some
teams should not have open membership as they require a certain level of
"trust" and or "authority". Getting ops on an IRC channel, getting root
on our infra, having access to sensitive information through our
security alias, dealing with personnel issues, working on a particular
team's ebuilds and or having oversight through QA, as a few examples,
do not all require the same level of "trust" nor do they convey the same
level of "authority".
* The list of teams in the above point, their relation to council and
what type of oversight and or intervention the council may have should
in my view be part of the discussion about GLEP39 reform.
* To have strong and independent teams, they should be responsible to
choose their leads. In the GLEP39 reform debate, I think we should allow
a system of checks and balances that should allow the council to
intervene when a team / project fails or disintegrates, but it should
not grant it "carte blanche".
* Both DevRel and QA teams, as some others, should not become
"popularity" teams. Their role may and can frequently lead to some
conflicts, but they should act in the best interest of Gentoo and not on
what is the "popular opinion" of the moment.
Lastly, I'm worried to see this debate "fueled" by particular incidents
and the opinion of some people about the current "state" of some teams,
when this should be a debate about ideas and "theoretical models".
I also object to some of the qualifications about the state of DevRel or
QA and don't think they convey a "fair" image of how both teams and
individual members act or have acted in the past.
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----