Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:56:53
Message-Id: 1126108595.10810.22.camel@txslpc1d36.wkst.vzwnet.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Jon Portnoy
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 23:18 -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:51:12PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:41 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote: > > > The devrel members who first approached me on this think that this is > > > too much red tape for something that 1, is literally probably going to > > > almost never be used 2, it's going to take too long to do anything with, > > > and take too long to get results that are going to make people happy, > > > and 3 most of them agreed to this policy because at the time it looked > > > like the best option. In looking back at it, it's not the best option, > > > so they want something less complicated. > > > > > > > 1. If it is almost never used, where is the extra red-tape? > > The point is not taking forever and a day to respond when things do > happen. >
I see nothing in the current policy that prevents immediate response. In a "critical" situation, devrel and infrastructure have the right to act immediately. As far as the investigative phase goes, it is limited to a maximum of 30 days. There is nothing that states that it can't be completed sooner.
> > 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results? > > Because there will be endless meetings and discussions. >
I must be blind, because I fail to see the endless meetings and discussons. I see an ivestigative phase where people work to collect the facts involved. I see one meeting at the end of that phase to determine if the complainant has merit. Personally, I'm willing to forgo that meeting and leave it up to the investigative team to make that decision. I then see a meeting where a panel looks at all of the evidence collected, asks for testimony if neccessary to reach a decision, and makes a decision. Finally, the whole process can be appealed to the Gentoo Council which can result in a third meeting. The only part that I see that can cause endless meetings is the section on challenges. Personally, I would remove that section and if someone has issue with the people on the board, they can bring that up on appeal to the Gentoo Council.
> > 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option? > > > > People took a step back from trying to just do whatever it takes to > please the handful of "devrel == stalin" folks
I'm going to ignore the invokation of Godwin's Law and state flat out that I have never thought that "devrel == stalin". However, I did see issues with the process that were made very apparent. The main issues being the lack of documentation, no set process to follow, and openness of the process. The purpose of making the changes was to address the issues with the process. As I said earlier, you will never make everyone happy and that should not be the goal. The goal is to have a documented open process that is as fair and balanced as possible. Regards, Paul -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>