Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Smoother moderation scheme?

["William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2248 bytes --]

On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:48 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>
> > 
> You already have two lists. Your argument that core is for more private
> stuff, but not developer communication seems odd.

Well we need two development type of lists. The first question we ask
any new devs on our quizzes is

When is it appropriate to post to gentoo-core rather than gentoo-dev?

I would answer that, but I would be answering a quiz question. Of which
the answer can be found in our online documentation.

> but I really
> do not understand why that should mean users are not allowed to contribute
> as you suggested in your other post.

If two devs are having an issue they are trying to work out. Community
involvement is likely to make that issue larger and worse. Which could
result in a user siding with a dev, dev getting upset and bailing or
etc.

Instead of the two devs left to work out their problems on their own. If
they can't they take it to devrel or etc. When users get involved in
that, it mucks things up. We then have to start using words like
moderation and etc.

> As for moderation, the simple fact is that your devs have neither the time
> nor the experience to do such a job.

I have some ideas there that I need to run by others first. I will then
GLEP it and put it out there for all :)

> Good luck with reinventing everything and discussing the same stuff you have
> for the last year that led to the formation of the Proctors.

Making changes and evolving is not reinvention. Quit many things aren't
being changed.

>  I accept that
> the decision to disband them has been taken, although it seems odd that no
> notification of the meeting which led to this latest change was given.

Pretty sure there are always notifications of council meetings. Although
not sure such notification is required per any policy.

> Obviously I think this is a major strategic error, and it's sad that rather
> than one member admit a mistake, the present Council has to override the
> consensus that took so long to reach.

Reversing a past decision is itself a form a admitting a mistake or
error. Or that trying something new didn't work as expected or etc.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]