Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:07:07
In Reply to: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal by Michael Tindal
Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the
investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also
think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of
managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:

> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0500 > From: Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o> > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for > how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a > problem like this. > > While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the > proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame. > So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before > the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this. > > This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for > investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process > more transparent. This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly > splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation > was handled happens again. > > The current proposal can be found here: > > > > I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very > professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are > relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone > wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so). > > Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to > make them more explicit: > > - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the > Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and > intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore > private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be > public). Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human > error in that regard. > > - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing > so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision. Althoug the > terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a > rightful addendum. > > - Evidence used must have the supporting context available. This > might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc. This is to > ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action > against a developer. > > If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to > the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first > before changing the wording on the proposal. > > Mike > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - > > iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0 > rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI= > =6UDC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
-- Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - dmwaters@g.o Gentoo linux: -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>