| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/14/2011 12:27 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Perhaps the Council should be released from this task at all, and |
| 5 |
>> instead should be given the job to assemble a jury out of the dev |
| 6 |
>> community (with non-involvement in DevRel) that is to examine the |
| 7 |
>> case, and make a final verdict that the Council will accept/act |
| 8 |
>> upon. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> Same problem as before. You need to make sure that the jury will not be |
| 11 |
> biased. This introduces another layer of bureaucracy. We have enough of |
| 12 |
> them already |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not sure we want an "unbiased" jury (as if such a thing could ever |
| 16 |
exist). We want a jury that is biased to agree with the majority of |
| 17 |
the Dev community. I'd suggest that one already exists - the council. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It seems to me that there is some kind of concern about "fairness" and |
| 20 |
that begs the question "what is fair?" Gentoo is a community-driven |
| 21 |
distro, and we all have to live with each other. We should try to |
| 22 |
foster a diversity of ideas, but when somebody is acting like a jerk, |
| 23 |
then we're allowed to call them on that. Ultimately if they don't |
| 24 |
want to cooperate we're not required to let them disrupt the project. |
| 25 |
Nobody has a right to be an asshole, and when they're prevented from |
| 26 |
being such it isn't "unfair." |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, what is fair? I'd say that fair is whatever a majority of the |
| 29 |
community wants it to be. It is in our interests to not turn away |
| 30 |
help, and to seek contribution from wherever it is offered. So, we |
| 31 |
already have incentive to bear with productive people who sometimes |
| 32 |
behave poorly. We don't need to find some kind of arbitrator who will |
| 33 |
force us to bear with a problem longer than we wish to. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Now, having a team that specializes in dealing with problems just |
| 36 |
makes sense, just like it makes sense to have people who love PERL |
| 37 |
maintain the PERL herd. The only reason PERL issues should go before |
| 38 |
the Council is if a PERL problem causes trouble for everybody else. |
| 39 |
If that happens then the council should do its job - figure out what |
| 40 |
the community needs and make it happen. Devrel decisions are no |
| 41 |
different. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I think the only cause for a council or trustee member to recuse |
| 44 |
themselves is a personal conflict of interest. If I propose some |
| 45 |
great way to spend foundation funds, I'm not going to recuse myself |
| 46 |
from the vote just because it was my idea. On the other hand, if I |
| 47 |
propose that a company I own shares in do some job for the foundation |
| 48 |
then I'm going to disclose that conflict of interest up-front, and |
| 49 |
more than likely I would recuse myself. Having an educated opinion |
| 50 |
isn't a conflict of interest, but having a specific and personal |
| 51 |
relationship to the matter being discussed is. My feeling is that |
| 52 |
Council members should only recuse themselves from Devrel actions if |
| 53 |
they're very personally involved - such as being a very close personal |
| 54 |
friend or relative of the "accused," or if they were personally |
| 55 |
heavily involved in the complaint itself. Even that is a gray area - |
| 56 |
just because a council member points out that somebody is behaving |
| 57 |
badly doesn't make them personally involved - the problem needs to |
| 58 |
strongly impact them in a personal way that it doesn't impact the |
| 59 |
community at large. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Rich |
Archives