Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Grant Goodyear]

Stuart Herbert wrote: [Mon Jul 19 2004, 04:44:37PM EDT]
> > * The ability to arbitrarily suspend or remove developers (without
> > providing notice or reason to the people who actually work with the
> > developer in question).
>
> Isn't that what the ombudsman is for?

To be specific, the ombudsman office is supposed to serve as a neutral
(as possible) body that attempts to mediate disputes.  The ombudsman
office never suspends or removes anybody.

> Btw, what was that about a probation period *before* cvs access was granted?
> I was never quite clear how the would-be dev in question was supposed to
> successfully complete a probation when he wasn't actually a dev yet, and
> therefore couldn't do anything.

My understanding from talking to recruiters a few weeks back is that
it's not really a "probation" period; it's a waiting period.  It's there
to weed out the folks who decide they want to become a dev on a lark,
but who aren't really willing to follow through.

The new-developer policy is detailed on the recruiters page on www.g.o
(under projects/devrel).  Again, these policies are the best that the
recruiters team have come up with so far.  If you have helpful
suggestions (or serious concerns), by all means bring them up.

> devrel don't have the easiest job in the world, and I'm sure those of us who
> enjoy our freedom of speech don't make it any easier :)  I think it'd be
> great to see them conduct their business a little less in the shadows though,
> so that they can maintain the goodwill of the developer community at large.

Fair enough.  What do you see as the most egregious cases, and let's
start there.

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@g.o
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76