1 |
On 10/07/2016 05:07 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On 10/07/2016 08:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
5 |
>> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote: |
6 |
>>> If the developer is really a problem, |
7 |
>>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer |
8 |
>>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be |
9 |
>>> done correctly and the developer will be removed. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially |
12 |
>> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as |
13 |
> s |
14 |
> Maybe, but I'd happily accept any bad PR that resulted in me choosing |
15 |
> not to punish a dev because it was unclear that the dev deserved it. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
At that point it becomes a bit murky. if bringing in a dev again it'd |
19 |
require monitoring by comrel at the very least to avoid issues (what if |
20 |
the dev has a grudge and commits a "fix" that is malicious in nature etc?). |
21 |
|
22 |
One alternative is to consider it a pure utility-function / cost-benefit |
23 |
consideration at that point where U(f(),g(),h()) where f() is determined |
24 |
by the value of the commits/support of the developer while being a dev, |
25 |
and g() the cost of maintenance burden, and h() is event risk to overall |
26 |
community or negativity due to pushback from other existing and |
27 |
potential devs wanting the one in question gone, so it can reduce |
28 |
long-term recruitment due to the negative PR etc. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
33 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
34 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |