| 1 |
Arun, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 07/02/10 16:23, Arun Raghavan wrote: |
| 5 |
> The problem is not noise. The problem is that an issue that needs to |
| 6 |
> be escalated to Devrel could not be resolved by the involved |
| 7 |
> developers or the people who were present at the time. Moreover, there |
| 8 |
> are strong emotions from the devs (and often their friends too), and |
| 9 |
> people will end up saying things that they may eventually regret. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Dragging this out in public /will/ polarise the community, result in |
| 12 |
> more public conflict, very likely without a complete picture of the |
| 13 |
> story on both sides being available. Devrel's purpose is to avoid |
| 14 |
> this, and I believe this does work (we can debate their efficacy or |
| 15 |
> how things can improve, but saying it doesn't work is unfair, IMO). I |
| 16 |
> don't see how your proposal would deal with this fallout. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think we're mixing up a few things by now: |
| 19 |
- What cases should be handled in public, which shouldn't |
| 20 |
- Does DevRel work effectively or not |
| 21 |
- The special case of banning people |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
All I want to say right here is that: |
| 24 |
- Not everything needs to be handle loudly and public |
| 25 |
(if I made that impression) |
| 26 |
- I do believe in need for fundamental changes on DevRel |
| 27 |
(as introduced in a another thread earlier) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For the rest I propose to take this offline. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Best, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Sebastian |
Archives