Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:11:38
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509121301420.10519@monster
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Aron Griffis
devrel has the people, and has even filled the rolls in the origional

The objection from the people who started this initially, is that it
gets too complicated, and involves too much red tape, and i agree with
them. Yeah, i realize that people like checks and balances in the
process, but who says that there aren't checks and balances?  What i
mean by this is that The way devrel has always worked, and will continue
to work is that when it comes to final decision making, the majority of
devrel has always had the final say. I see this as a form of checks and
balances. If one person is out to do away with someone and manages to
convince the other 4 or 6 on the committee that it's right, and the
majority of devrel disagrees with the commitee then it's not going to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Aron Griffis wrote:

> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:41:47 -0400 > From: Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o > Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc > > Hi Mike, > > Mike Doty wrote: [Wed Sep 07 2005, 12:16:29AM EDT] >> In the end, I've read 20+ emails today on this thread, which we at >> best "I don't like this", and at worst, "devrel is a conspiracy!", >> yet no one has offered a solution. Put up or shut up. My >> recommendation would be to merge the two groups, by expanding the >> panel of "judges" from 3-5 to 5-7. This cuts out a lot of the red >> tape and improves communication while still retaining a similar >> number of people involved. > > I'm confused by this paragraph. Nearly all the contributors to the > thread provided arguments to back up their position. If some of the > contributors sound shocked, I think it's because they perceive > dmwaters' suggestion as gutting the recent proposal which they believe > was an important step to making devrel more effective. > > The argument presented by dmwaters seems to be: > > Two committees is unnecessarily complicated and requires more > people than we have. One committee per complaint should be > sufficient, and will be as impartial as possible, to the extent > that it can. > > The rebuttal seems to be: > > Two committees, investigative and judicial, per complaint is > necessary for checks and balances. Going back to one committee > reverts the progress made by the previous proposal. > > If I'm missing something, please let me know. I don't want to leave > out a possibly-critical argument in my personal evaluation. > > Personally I'm in agreement with the rebuttal. From my perspective, > the problem with one committee is that it's possible for a single > charismatic, strong-willed individual to carry the group to their > preferred conclusion. Separating investigation and judgment doesn't > solve that problem completely, but it helps to mitigate it. > > If devrel has trouble staffing both committees from its ranks, then > IMHO a call should be put out to request devs to temporary fill > a role. Has that been done, and I missed it? > > Regards, > Aron > > -- > Aron Griffis > Gentoo Linux Developer > >
-- Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - dmwaters@g.o Gentoo linux: -- gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o>