1 |
Deedra Waters wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 02:11:35PM EDT] |
2 |
>devrel has the people, and has even filled the rolls in the origional |
3 |
>proposal. |
4 |
|
5 |
Oh! Sorry I didn't understand that initially. |
6 |
|
7 |
>The objection from the people who started this initially, is that it |
8 |
>gets too complicated, and involves too much red tape, and i agree with |
9 |
>them. |
10 |
|
11 |
How many complaints has devrel dealt with from start to finish using |
12 |
the "new" model? I'm trying to understand where the red tape is, what |
13 |
it is hindering, and how it has been tested so far. |
14 |
|
15 |
IMHO some of the red tape is necessary for the process to be correct. |
16 |
Certainly it should be trimmed where possible without compromising the |
17 |
system, and I appreciate that's what you're wanting to do. It's just |
18 |
a matter of determining which red tape can be cut and which can't. |
19 |
|
20 |
>Yeah, i realize that people like checks and balances in the process, |
21 |
>but who says that there aren't checks and balances? What i mean by |
22 |
>this is that The way devrel has always worked, and will continue to |
23 |
>work is that when it comes to final decision making, the majority of |
24 |
>devrel has always had the final say. I see this as a form of checks |
25 |
>and balances. If one person is out to do away with someone and |
26 |
>manages to convince the other 4 or 6 on the committee that it's |
27 |
>right, and the majority of devrel disagrees with the commitee then |
28 |
>it's not going to happen. |
29 |
|
30 |
You make a good point concerning the checks and balances inherently |
31 |
available in a voting system. Nonetheless, you'll displease a lot of |
32 |
people by doing away with one of the core attributes of the proposal, |
33 |
so IMHO it would help to explain how it has hindered you so far. |
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Aron |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Aron Griffis |
40 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |