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 13:52:32
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509070850150.6803@monster
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-devrel] devrel meeting etc by Paul Varner
I said from the beginning that I had not written up a proposal for it.
Why? Because i wanted some form of discussion first so that i could get
a feel for people's concerns and thoughts on it besides those who i've
already talked to. Proposals are great and all, but it helps when you
actually see what people expect first...
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Paul Varner wrote:

> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:51:12 -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 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? > 2. Why is it going to take too long to get results? > 3. What has changed to make it not look like the best option? > >> The reality is that reguardless of what devrel decides to do people >> aren't going to be happy. > > That one will always be true. However, if you have a well documented > and followed process, those people are going to be on the fringes of the > organization. If they are not, then something is probably wrong with the > process and should be fixed. > > I thought that a lot of the reason for the recent changes were due to > the perception that there were problems with the process. As I said in > my first message, no was my gut reaction. A lot of the reason for that > reaction is I don't see a clearly defined process being proposed in its > place. I also am not seeing why this newest process isn't a workable > process, other than complaints that it contains too much red-tape. > > Note: I'm not saying that there isn't too much red-tape and bureaucracy, > just that I'm not seeing the evidence of it showing the reasoning behind > the latest proposed changes. > > When it comes to the discipline process, I personally feel that is one > place where we rally should make the effort to have our procedures > documented and thought out. If enough developers have a bad perception > about our disciplinary process, we are just hurting ourselves. > > Finally, I'm not a part of developer relations, so my opinions don't > really matter when it comes time to vote on this. But I do want to > thank you for taking the time be open and to listen to my point of view. > > Regards, > Paul > >
-- 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 Paul Varner <fuzzyray@g.o>