1 |
Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the |
2 |
investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also |
3 |
think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of |
4 |
managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be. |
5 |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote: |
6 |
|
7 |
> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0500 |
8 |
> From: Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o> |
9 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
10 |
> To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o |
11 |
> Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal |
12 |
> |
13 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
14 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
15 |
> |
16 |
> As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for |
17 |
> how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a |
18 |
> problem like this. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the |
21 |
> proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame. |
22 |
> So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before |
23 |
> the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for |
26 |
> investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process |
27 |
> more transparent. This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly |
28 |
> splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation |
29 |
> was handled happens again. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> The current proposal can be found here: |
32 |
> |
33 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt |
34 |
> |
35 |
> I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very |
36 |
> professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are |
37 |
> relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone |
38 |
> wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so). |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to |
41 |
> make them more explicit: |
42 |
> |
43 |
> - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the |
44 |
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and |
45 |
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore |
46 |
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be |
47 |
> public). Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human |
48 |
> error in that regard. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing |
51 |
> so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision. Althoug the |
52 |
> terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a |
53 |
> rightful addendum. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> - Evidence used must have the supporting context available. This |
56 |
> might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc. This is to |
57 |
> ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action |
58 |
> against a developer. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to |
61 |
> the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first |
62 |
> before changing the wording on the proposal. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Mike |
65 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
66 |
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
67 |
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
68 |
> |
69 |
> iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0 |
70 |
> rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI= |
71 |
> =6UDC |
72 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
77 |
dmwaters@g.o |
78 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list |