| 1 |
On Monday 19 July 2004 03:57 pm, Jason Rhinelander wrote: |
| 2 |
> The above doesn't seem so far-fetched - or maybe it is: that document |
| 3 |
> didn't answer many questions about how the whole devrel process works. |
| 4 |
> If the devrel policies had a built-in appeal process, it might go a long |
| 5 |
> way towards alleviating the fears of some devs that devrel is becoming a |
| 6 |
> sort of "big brother" organisation. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The few instances that I have been involved in have been very neutral. Devrel |
| 9 |
will take both sides of a story equally. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> As has also been commented in this thread, a document outlining devrel's |
| 12 |
> responsibilities and processes would be quite welcome - both for devs |
| 13 |
> and users, who could use the document as a point of reference in filing |
| 14 |
> or contesting a devrel complaint or suspension. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, this was suppose to be one such step. Having a document that outlines |
| 17 |
what devrel does in enforcing policies doesn't do any good if you don't have |
| 18 |
policies... Yet, such a task has to go through a lot of opposition as you |
| 19 |
can see. ;) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cheers, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-C |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team |
| 27 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives