| 1 |
On 07:35 Tue 01 Oct , Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > We had proctors project which failed up horribly, thats why I put something |
| 4 |
> > else that does not have the stigma. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yeah, good call. Other less hostile options are things like community |
| 7 |
action team, community response team, or just the vaguer community |
| 8 |
relations. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Honestly, it seems to me that this failure is almost the entire reason |
| 11 |
> that we're re-writing the thing, and I don't really see how the new |
| 12 |
> version is any different from the old. I think the previous failure |
| 13 |
> was in execution, not in concept (and I don't blame the Proctors |
| 14 |
> themselves for that). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I agree. It's in large part because we as a council failed to back them |
| 17 |
up sufficiently. As soon as they got any heat, they were on their own. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The policy is fine, what we need is the execution and the high-level |
| 20 |
support behind it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Donnie |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 27 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
| 28 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |
Archives