| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> For me, this problem is critical. Devrel is working on formalizing a new |
| 3 |
> policy, and we will announce news on this soon. In the meantime, to |
| 4 |
> prevent further escalations, I will use my lead powers to request |
| 5 |
> immediate bans whenever I see one of you violate the CoC[2] and ignore |
| 6 |
> the previous warnings. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Perhaps a bit of a sledgehammer approach, but right now I think it is |
| 9 |
safe to say that we're leaning far too on the side of leniency. I |
| 10 |
look forward to the new policy proposals. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Oh, I do endorse the previous suggestion that we come up with another |
| 13 |
way of appointing people to Devrel. My personal opinion is that it |
| 14 |
should be appointed by Council (perhaps taking into account |
| 15 |
recommendations from the Devrel team and others). Others have |
| 16 |
suggested direct election. Either would give the team a bit more of a |
| 17 |
mandate. That isn't really directed at the current team in particular |
| 18 |
- it just seems like a better practice. Maybe an analogous situation |
| 19 |
that works well is that the Trustees grant an annual budget to Infra |
| 20 |
for routine maintenance. Anything reasonable charged against that |
| 21 |
budget gets signed off by the Treasurer with no further discussion, |
| 22 |
and any need outside the budget goes through the normal approval |
| 23 |
process. Delegate and hands off... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives