From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IArfR-0004dn-IJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:21:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6HIJWch023926; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:19:32 GMT Received: from heisenberg.zen.co.uk (heisenberg.zen.co.uk [212.23.3.141]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6HIEtst016370 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:14:55 GMT Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=spike) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IArZW-0007m9-QF for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:14:55 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:14:54 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1184346747.8347.10.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> (from wolf31o2@gentoo.org on Fri Jul 13 18:12:27 2007) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.16 Message-Id: <1184696094l.7335l.0l@spike> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 46408ea9-d579-4483-b95c-51904aa28c32 X-Archives-Hash: c9247f5fcac4d9cc2ba0e0208aaa7c54 On 2007.07.13 18:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > Mike Doty : > >=20 > > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, > now > > > would be the time. > >=20 > > Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some > time > > now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive. >=20 [snip stuff I mostly agree with] > --=20 > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering Strategic Lead > Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams > Games Developer/Soon to be former Council Member and glad/Foundation > Trustee > Gentoo Foundation >=20 The original vision for the proctors failed because the council=20 perceived that the proctors was going to be a a high profile,=20 preemptive action project, mostly on the -dev mailing list. To be preemptive requires time to act - which is just not possible=20 without moderation or some form of delay. To be high profile requires to be very public too, so there is actually=20 a profile to see at all. Human nature dictates that individuals don't=20 like the 'loss of face' associated with having their shortcomings=20 pointed out in public, thus the most successful proctors work was=20 carried out on a one to one basis, not preemtively and in a very low=20 profile way. In my opinion, the project was successful in improving=20 communications but not in the way it was originally envisioned by the=20 council when the project was started. Oh - a final word on the proctors ... there is no need to be a member=20 of any project to smooth out misunderstandings or help improve=20 communications. A thick skin to avoid being upset when you try to help=20 and its not required is an asset though. I don't like the proposed ML change, for several reasons. 1. As others have said, it will create a class structure within Gentoo,=20 with non-dev contributors becoming second class citizens. At the same=20 time, the barrier to becoming a develper will be increased.=20 2. Something that can be done by *anybody* (list moderation) will be=20 done by *nobody* - You only need look around at your workplace to see=20 that. Worse still, if the proposed moderation actually happens, it will=20 be based on nepotism. I say that because people will only look at posts=20 they are likely to be interested in. 3. Gentoo is a living organism ... users (including devs) contribute=20 what they can when they can. As has already been discussed,=20 organisations go through several major structural changes as they grow=20 and its possible gentoo is due one now. Keeping in mind those three points I propose that :- a) -core is unchanged b) -dev has its scope narrowed to gentoo wide technical issues only c) -per herd lists are used for traffic that does not concern almost=20 everyone. This reducing the scope of of -dev reduces the noise on the list as=20 presently, even the on topic posts are noise to most devs. The above restructuring allows room for gentoo to grow, without=20 creating any second class citizens and reduces the perceived noise on - dev at the same time. Should the council want to enable moderation, they need to appoint a=20 group to do it *everyone* simply won't work. Finding members might be=20 difficult as the original ML control group has just been disbanded. Before the council vote on this latest idea, I suggest they learn from=20 the open source movement and look at other distros that have survived=20 to become bigger (head count) than Gantoo and see what they did. There=20 is no need to reinvent the wheel or suffer from the 'not invented here'=20 syndrome. Drawing on what other distros or large projects have done is=20 the was OSS works. The worst thing the council can do is vote this measure as a parting=20 gesture, a process that cannot be completed before the existing=20 councils last meeting on 9th August. It needs proper research and=20 consideration so is best left to the incoming council since they will=20 have to live with the decision.=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySegoon) =20 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list