Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:14:15
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509071107450.6803@monster
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Paul Varner
When this policy was agreed on, a lot of us just wanted to make people
happy to stop us from being nailed every time we breathed. i'm not going
to say all of devrel felt that way, but most of them did.
I'm not going to say wether that was the right or wrong reason to go
with this, but that's what happened.

I'd also say for 1 that the proposal that's currently in place isn't bad
if gentoo was 10 times the size it is now. It's not that large however,
and i think that for something that's this size, that the current
proposal is a bit overkill. I'm not even suggesting trashing the whole
document, just changing it slightly.

As for the endless meetings, dispite 3 meetings that may be listed
there, if it goes anything like the meetings on top of meetings we had
to even agree to this process, there are going to be a lot more then
just the 3 or 4 just so that we can hash and rehash things. This makes
us a lot less productive. Meetings aren't bad, but there's productive,
and there's just plain crazy.
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Paul Varner wrote:

> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:56:35 -0500 > From: Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o> > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc > > 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 >
-- Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - dmwaters@g.o Gentoo linux: -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list