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
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.58.0506061706040.6108@shell.osuosl.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal by Michael Tindal
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

Replies

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