| 1 |
On Monday, 6 June 2005 07:23 pm, Michael Tindal wrote: |
| 2 |
> This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for |
| 3 |
> investigation and action taking, and making the decision |
| 4 |
> making process more transparent. This does not take the power |
| 5 |
> away from devrel, mearly splits it within devrel to ensure |
| 6 |
> that an outcry over how the situation was handled happens |
| 7 |
> again. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The current proposal can be found here: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I really like this. The only omission I can see is what the |
| 14 |
Investigation subproject members should do if they believe a |
| 15 |
developer is likely to be a short-term important danger for the |
| 16 |
project. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think in this case investigators should be allowed to bypass |
| 19 |
the Judiciary subproject and ask Infra to immediately suspend |
| 20 |
the developer's access to relevant portions of our |
| 21 |
infrastructure. Devrel should then immediately disclose this |
| 22 |
decision to the public (developer base). To continue the "real |
| 23 |
life analogy", this is a bit like law enforcement agencies |
| 24 |
keeping people in custody before they are formaly accused |
| 25 |
because they could be a danger to society. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Thanks for your work, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Olivier Fisette (ribosome) |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |
Archives