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 |