Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:35:10
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509061533540.6803@monster
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Mike Frysinger
1 I've seen a lot of discussions in the past, and i see it coming again
2 with this one. i think the reality of impartiality is that if you want
3 someone to be utterly nutral then you might as well bring in someone who
4 doesn't deal with the gentoo community at all.
5 On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
6
7 > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:17:14 -0400
8 > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
9 > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
10 > To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
11 > Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
12 >
13 > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:38 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
14 >> Paul Varner wrote:
15 >>> My gut reaction to reading this proposal was no! While I can see a need
16 >>> for reducing the number of people involved with a complaint, I firmly
17 >>> feel that in order to ensure fairness in the complaint process that
18 >>> there needs to be checks and balances in place. The recent changes to
19 >>> split the investigative from the judical side of developer relations and
20 >>> make everything transparent as possible does much to accomplish this.
21 >>>
22 >>> I strongly feel that moving back to a small committee would be a step
23 >>> backwards in that respect.
24 >>
25 >> Why can't a small committee be fair? Where are the checks and balances
26 >> in the "new" structure? I see one group investigating, another deciding
27 >> the punishment, but no insurance that the latter group won't go
28 >> overboard with punishment or give people a slap on the wrist for a major
29 >> problem.
30 >
31 > each committee is supposed to be a check on the other, plus there is the
32 > council as a check to the whole devrel process if it's needed (which it
33 > hopefully shouldnt be)
34 >
35 >> I agree that transparency is a good thing, but I disagree that
36 >> increasing the bureaucracy does much besides increase the time necessary
37 >> to get anything done.
38 >
39 > maybe, but i thought the idea wasnt setup just to address a 'check' system,
40 > but also to keep things impartial ... it's hard for people who do the
41 > 'investigating' to stay completely partial (look at the fun discussions that
42 > have happened in the past), so there is the other group to assess the
43 > findings and all that jazz with a fresh imparital eye on things
44 > -mike
45 >
46
47 --
48 Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
49 dmwaters@g.o
50 Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
51
52 --
53 gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list