| 1 |
Corey Shields wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 19 July 2004 01:20 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new |
| 5 |
>>spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's |
| 6 |
>>noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing |
| 7 |
>>developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this |
| 8 |
>>is. Come to think of it, I remember a certain former manager bringing |
| 9 |
>>this exact point up shortly before he left. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Nobody on the devrel team is getting their jollies from "policing developers", |
| 13 |
> and if there wasn't a need for it then you wouldn't see it. The problem is |
| 14 |
> that some people have acted or said some pretty offensive things while acting |
| 15 |
> on behalf of Gentoo in the eyes of the victim. That can't be put up with, |
| 16 |
> and personally I'm not open to be persuaded otherwise. Whether developers |
| 17 |
> realize it or not, there are corporations and large organizations watching, |
| 18 |
> and some of them migrating to Gentoo. As a distribution, we can't tolerate |
| 19 |
> developers being jerks to other people, especially our users. I know this |
| 20 |
> first hand, because my place of employment was about to pack up and walk away |
| 21 |
> from Gentoo altogether after one such altercation between one of our |
| 22 |
> employees and a dev. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't think it is asking too much of people to treat each other |
| 25 |
> appropriately. If that is the case, then you won't see devrel's involvement |
| 26 |
> and there is no problem. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Though I wholeheartedly agree with Corey's comments above, maybe an |
| 29 |
official appeal process could be established, to prevent the possibility |
| 30 |
of devrel abuse before it has the chance to become an issue? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Imagine this situation: DevA argues with DevB about an issue that he |
| 33 |
thinks is a mistake. Assume that the argument doesn't contradict the |
| 34 |
etiquette policies (i.e. doesn't resort to public name-calling). DevB |
| 35 |
gets pissed off that DevA argued against his idea, and contacts his |
| 36 |
DevRel pal, DevC, embellishing on a few facts to make it seem like DevA |
| 37 |
is breaking some etiquette guidelines. DevC, being a good pal of DevB, |
| 38 |
believes him, and initiates a suspension process of DevA. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The above doesn't seem so far-fetched - or maybe it is: that document |
| 41 |
didn't answer many questions about how the whole devrel process works. |
| 42 |
If the devrel policies had a built-in appeal process, it might go a long |
| 43 |
way towards alleviating the fears of some devs that devrel is becoming a |
| 44 |
sort of "big brother" organisation. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
As has also been commented in this thread, a document outlining devrel's |
| 47 |
responsibilities and processes would be quite welcome - both for devs |
| 48 |
and users, who could use the document as a point of reference in filing |
| 49 |
or contesting a devrel complaint or suspension. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Cheers, |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> -Corey |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- Jason Rhinelander |
| 56 |
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives