* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 18:20 ` [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 20:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
` (2 more replies)
2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 3 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Corey Shields @ 2004-07-19 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Monday 19 July 2004 01:20 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
> spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
> noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
> developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
> is. Come to think of it, I remember a certain former manager bringing
> this exact point up shortly before he left.
Nobody on the devrel team is getting their jollies from "policing developers",
and if there wasn't a need for it then you wouldn't see it. The problem is
that some people have acted or said some pretty offensive things while acting
on behalf of Gentoo in the eyes of the victim. That can't be put up with,
and personally I'm not open to be persuaded otherwise. Whether developers
realize it or not, there are corporations and large organizations watching,
and some of them migrating to Gentoo. As a distribution, we can't tolerate
developers being jerks to other people, especially our users. I know this
first hand, because my place of employment was about to pack up and walk away
from Gentoo altogether after one such altercation between one of our
employees and a dev.
I don't think it is asking too much of people to treat each other
appropriately. If that is the case, then you won't see devrel's involvement
and there is no problem.
Cheers,
-Corey
--
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
@ 2004-07-19 20:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 20:55 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 20:47 ` fmouse-gentoo
2004-07-19 20:57 ` Jason Rhinelander
2 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2004-07-19 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1339 bytes --]
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:22:58 -0500 Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Nobody on the devrel team is getting their jollies from "policing
| developers", and if there wasn't a need for it then you wouldn't see
| it. The problem is that some people have acted or said some pretty
| offensive things while acting on behalf of Gentoo in the eyes of the
| victim. That can't be put up with, and personally I'm not open to be
| persuaded otherwise. Whether developers realize it or not, there are
| corporations and large organizations watching, and some of them
| migrating to Gentoo. As a distribution, we can't tolerate developers
| being jerks to other people, especially our users. I know this first
| hand, because my place of employment was about to pack up and walk
| away from Gentoo altogether after one such altercation between one of
| our employees and a dev.
|
| I don't think it is asking too much of people to treat each other
| appropriately. If that is the case, then you won't see devrel's
| involvement and there is no problem.
So large corporations depend upon devrel reassigning mentors *without
bothering to inform the original mentor*? Uh huh...
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2004-07-19 20:55 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 21:03 ` Ciaran McCreesh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Corey Shields @ 2004-07-19 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Monday 19 July 2004 03:35 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> So large corporations depend upon devrel reassigning mentors *without
> bothering to inform the original mentor*? Uh huh...
First of all, you missed the point entirely. Second, that has nothing to do
with the document in question. I don't see anywhere in that doc that devrel
has such abilities. If I missed it, please send me the URL.
-C
--
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:55 ` Corey Shields
@ 2004-07-19 21:03 ` Ciaran McCreesh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2004-07-19 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:55:35 -0500 Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 19 July 2004 03:35 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > So large corporations depend upon devrel reassigning mentors
| > *without bothering to inform the original mentor*? Uh huh...
|
| First of all, you missed the point entirely. Second, that has nothing
| to do with the document in question. I don't see anywhere in that doc
| that devrel has such abilities. If I missed it, please send me the
| URL.
...and you missed that I wasn't objecting to what devrel did, but rather
the way in which they did it.
Oh, and devrel's powers don't seem to be documented anywhere except that
thread on -core started by drobbins several months ago, which ended up
being ignored.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 20:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2004-07-19 20:47 ` fmouse-gentoo
2004-07-19 20:57 ` Jason Rhinelander
2 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: fmouse-gentoo @ 2004-07-19 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Thus spake Corey Shields on Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:22:58PM CDT
> On Monday 19 July 2004 01:20 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
> > spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
> > noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
> > developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
> > is. Come to think of it, I remember a certain former manager bringing
> > this exact point up shortly before he left.
>
> Nobody on the devrel team is getting their jollies from "policing developers",
> and if there wasn't a need for it then you wouldn't see it. The problem is
> that some people have acted or said some pretty offensive things while acting
> on behalf of Gentoo in the eyes of the victim. That can't be put up with,
> and personally I'm not open to be persuaded otherwise. Whether developers
> realize it or not, there are corporations and large organizations watching,
> and some of them migrating to Gentoo. As a distribution, we can't tolerate
> developers being jerks to other people, especially our users. I know this
> first hand, because my place of employment was about to pack up and walk away
> from Gentoo altogether after one such altercation between one of our
> employees and a dev.
For what it's worth, from a lurker and Gentoo user who also uses Debian,
I've been _very_ favorably impressed with the thoughtfullness and
responsiveness of the Gentoo development community. I file a fair number of
bugs on Gentoo, and usually have a protracted exchange with one or more of
the devs. The people with whom I've interacted on Gentoo bugzilla have been
really great! - as have been the developers with whom I've had conversations
on one or more of the Gentoo user mailing lists.
IMHO, this is part of what FOSS is all about and what makes it work :-)
It's one of the reasons I cite when I recommend Gentoo to others, both
private and corporate.
I contrast this some of the interactions I've had with the Mozilla
development people and the Gnome development people, some of whom have
rather an attitude issue, or one Debian QA person with whom I corresponded
about a Debian bug a few years ago who was downright rude and insulting to
the point where Joey Hess had to step in and address the issue. In that
case, ironically, the package maintainer for the package in question, with
whom I finally corresponded directly, acknowledged the problem right away
and had it fixed and online in a few hours.
--
Lindsay Haisley | "Everything works | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | if you let it" | available at
512-259-1190 | (The Roadie) | <http://www.fmp.com/pubkeys>
http://www.fmp.com | |
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 20:35 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 20:47 ` fmouse-gentoo
@ 2004-07-19 20:57 ` Jason Rhinelander
2004-07-19 21:02 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 21:14 ` Tim Yamin
2 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jason Rhinelander @ 2004-07-19 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Corey Shields wrote:
> On Monday 19 July 2004 01:20 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>>I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
>>spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
>>noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
>>developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
>>is. Come to think of it, I remember a certain former manager bringing
>>this exact point up shortly before he left.
>
>
> Nobody on the devrel team is getting their jollies from "policing developers",
> and if there wasn't a need for it then you wouldn't see it. The problem is
> that some people have acted or said some pretty offensive things while acting
> on behalf of Gentoo in the eyes of the victim. That can't be put up with,
> and personally I'm not open to be persuaded otherwise. Whether developers
> realize it or not, there are corporations and large organizations watching,
> and some of them migrating to Gentoo. As a distribution, we can't tolerate
> developers being jerks to other people, especially our users. I know this
> first hand, because my place of employment was about to pack up and walk away
> from Gentoo altogether after one such altercation between one of our
> employees and a dev.
>
> I don't think it is asking too much of people to treat each other
> appropriately. If that is the case, then you won't see devrel's involvement
> and there is no problem.
Though I wholeheartedly agree with Corey's comments above, maybe an
official appeal process could be established, to prevent the possibility
of devrel abuse before it has the chance to become an issue?
Imagine this situation: DevA argues with DevB about an issue that he
thinks is a mistake. Assume that the argument doesn't contradict the
etiquette policies (i.e. doesn't resort to public name-calling). DevB
gets pissed off that DevA argued against his idea, and contacts his
DevRel pal, DevC, embellishing on a few facts to make it seem like DevA
is breaking some etiquette guidelines. DevC, being a good pal of DevB,
believes him, and initiates a suspension process of DevA.
The above doesn't seem so far-fetched - or maybe it is: that document
didn't answer many questions about how the whole devrel process works.
If the devrel policies had a built-in appeal process, it might go a long
way towards alleviating the fears of some devs that devrel is becoming a
sort of "big brother" organisation.
As has also been commented in this thread, a document outlining devrel's
responsibilities and processes would be quite welcome - both for devs
and users, who could use the document as a point of reference in filing
or contesting a devrel complaint or suspension.
> Cheers,
>
> -Corey
-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:57 ` Jason Rhinelander
@ 2004-07-19 21:02 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 21:14 ` Tim Yamin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Corey Shields @ 2004-07-19 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Monday 19 July 2004 03:57 pm, Jason Rhinelander wrote:
> The above doesn't seem so far-fetched - or maybe it is: that document
> didn't answer many questions about how the whole devrel process works.
> If the devrel policies had a built-in appeal process, it might go a long
> way towards alleviating the fears of some devs that devrel is becoming a
> sort of "big brother" organisation.
The few instances that I have been involved in have been very neutral. Devrel
will take both sides of a story equally.
> As has also been commented in this thread, a document outlining devrel's
> responsibilities and processes would be quite welcome - both for devs
> and users, who could use the document as a point of reference in filing
> or contesting a devrel complaint or suspension.
Well, this was suppose to be one such step. Having a document that outlines
what devrel does in enforcing policies doesn't do any good if you don't have
policies... Yet, such a task has to go through a lot of opposition as you
can see. ;)
Cheers,
-C
--
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:57 ` Jason Rhinelander
2004-07-19 21:02 ` Corey Shields
@ 2004-07-19 21:14 ` Tim Yamin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Tim Yamin @ 2004-07-19 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Jason Rhinelander; +Cc: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2746 bytes --]
> Imagine this situation: DevA argues with DevB about an issue that he
> thinks is a mistake. Assume that the argument doesn't contradict the
> etiquette policies (i.e. doesn't resort to public name-calling). DevB
> gets pissed off that DevA argued against his idea, and contacts his
> DevRel pal, DevC, embellishing on a few facts to make it seem like DevA
> is breaking some etiquette guidelines.
This is why DevRel is a "last resort" and resolution of developer to
developer issues through the Ombudsmen is the recommended procedure -
since we're a team DevB isn't everybody's pal and that should prevent
any issues like that.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/ombudsman/index.xml
"Given the impressive number of Gentoo developers, it is inevitable that
occasional clashes will occur between developers and managers and
between developers and developers. Establishment of an official
ombudsman--one who has been assigned to impartially investigate
complaints and settle disputes--is one mechanism to prevent such
disputes from escalating out of control."
> The above doesn't seem so far-fetched - or maybe it is: that document
> didn't answer many questions about how the whole devrel process works.
> If the devrel policies had a built-in appeal process, it might go a long
> way towards alleviating the fears of some devs that devrel is becoming a
> sort of "big brother" organisation.
> DevC, being a good pal of DevB,
> believes him, and initiates a suspension process of DevA.
Since Developer Relations again consists of several ( Currently 11 )
people; this again should not be an issue. Also, suspensions are only
taken when *every* other option has failed - and DevA has been warned on
countless occasions of the same problem.
> As has also been commented in this thread, a document outlining devrel's
> responsibilities and processes would be quite welcome - both for devs
> and users, who could use the document as a point of reference in filing
> or contesting a devrel complaint or suspension.
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/
[3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml
"The stated goal for developer relations is to act as a meeting point
for Gentoo developers and advanced users both. As such, developer
relations is concerned with both intra-developer relations as well as
forming relations with advanced users and prospective developers."
The policy [3] outlines more on how we aim to do this job - hope this helps!
Thanks!
| Tim Yamin: plasmaroo@gentoo.org
| = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
| Gentoo Linux Developer Relations
| Gentoo Linux X86 Core and Kernel Team
| Gentoo Security and GLSA Security Systems
| Gentoo Scientific and EDA Package Development
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 18:20 ` [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
@ 2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-19 21:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
` (2 more replies)
2004-07-19 22:19 ` Grant Goodyear
2004-07-20 0:23 ` Kurt Lieber
3 siblings, 3 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2004-07-19 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]
On Monday 19 July 2004 19:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, you could, but the devrel self-granted powers list suggests that
> you won't get very far:
>
> * The ability to arbitrarily suspend or remove developers (without
> providing notice or reason to the people who actually work with the
> developer in question).
Isn't that what the ombudsman is for?
> * The ability to decide to change the mentor for a new developer without
> even bothering to tell the original mentor, let alone providing a reason
> to the people involved.
I've saw that one happen too :(
Btw, what was that about a probation period *before* cvs access was granted?
I was never quite clear how the would-be dev in question was supposed to
successfully complete a probation when he wasn't actually a dev yet, and
therefore couldn't do anything.
> and the latest:
>
> * The ability to impose arbitrary restrictions upon what developers are
> and are not allowed to say on IRC and the mailing lists.
Don't forget the ebuild do's and don'ts hidden in the etiquette doc ;-)
devrel don't have the easiest job in the world, and I'm sure those of us who
enjoy our freedom of speech don't make it any easier :) I think it'd be
great to see them conduct their business a little less in the shadows though,
so that they can maintain the goodwill of the developer community at large.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2004-07-19 21:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 21:12 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-19 22:30 ` [gentoo-dev] " Grant Goodyear
2004-07-19 23:03 ` Tom Knight
2 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2004-07-19 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]
[ resend to list. ARGH! ]
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:44:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| devrel don't have the easiest job in the world, and I'm sure those of
| us who enjoy our freedom of speech don't make it any easier :) I
| think it'd be great to see them conduct their business a little less
| in the shadows though, so that they can maintain the goodwill of the
| developer community at large.
Precisely. If devrel explained exactly why a certain recruit was stolen
from me, I probably wouldn't mind -- I'm pretty sure they have a good
reason for doing so. However, I was told *absolutely nothing* by devrel
about this.
(For those of you who don't get the Latin in the subject, it means "who
will watch the watchers?". Juvenal, "Satires" if you want to look it
up...)
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 21:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2004-07-19 21:12 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-19 21:44 ` Spider
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2004-07-19 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 686 bytes --]
On Monday 19 July 2004 22:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> (For those of you who don't get the Latin in the subject, it means "who
> will watch the watchers?". Juvenal, "Satires" if you want to look it
> up...)
Alan Moore's "The Watchmen" is an excellent head-fsck on this very topic.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 21:12 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2004-07-19 21:44 ` Spider
2004-07-19 22:03 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-20 5:10 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Spider @ 2004-07-19 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 659 bytes --]
begin quote
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:12:13 +0100
Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 19 July 2004 22:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > (For those of you who don't get the Latin in the subject, it means
> > "who
> > will watch the watchers?". Juvenal, "Satires" if you want to look it
> > up...)
>
> Alan Moore's "The Watchmen" is an excellent head-fsck on this very
> topic.
Very applauadble book indeed.
Also I should note the book of enoch. Will give a different view of
who the watchers are. *faint smile*
//Spider
--
begin .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 21:44 ` Spider
@ 2004-07-19 22:03 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-20 0:31 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-20 5:10 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2004-07-19 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]
On Monday 19 July 2004 22:44, Spider wrote:
> Very applauadble book indeed.
>
> Also I should note the book of enoch. Will give a different view of
> who the watchers are. *faint smile*
:) Tis a rare thing to come across someone who's familiar with that.
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* [gentoo-dev] Re: The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 21:44 ` Spider
2004-07-19 22:03 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2004-07-20 5:10 ` Duncan
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2004-07-20 5:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Spider posted <20040719234448.6160505e.spider@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below, on Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:44:48 +0200:
> Also I should note the book of enoch. Will give a different view of
> who the watchers are. *faint smile*
Unfortunately I know nothing of the books under discussion. However,
"book of enoch" sounds like it just might make interesting reading for a
Gentoo dev, present or potential, simply because of the title, given
Gentoo history. (Lest I be not plainly spoken enough, Enoch Linux,
anyone? =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-19 21:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
@ 2004-07-19 22:30 ` Grant Goodyear
2004-07-19 23:03 ` Tom Knight
2 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Grant Goodyear @ 2004-07-19 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1865 bytes --]
Stuart Herbert wrote: [Mon Jul 19 2004, 04:44:37PM EDT]
> > * The ability to arbitrarily suspend or remove developers (without
> > providing notice or reason to the people who actually work with the
> > developer in question).
>
> Isn't that what the ombudsman is for?
To be specific, the ombudsman office is supposed to serve as a neutral
(as possible) body that attempts to mediate disputes. The ombudsman
office never suspends or removes anybody.
> Btw, what was that about a probation period *before* cvs access was granted?
> I was never quite clear how the would-be dev in question was supposed to
> successfully complete a probation when he wasn't actually a dev yet, and
> therefore couldn't do anything.
My understanding from talking to recruiters a few weeks back is that
it's not really a "probation" period; it's a waiting period. It's there
to weed out the folks who decide they want to become a dev on a lark,
but who aren't really willing to follow through.
The new-developer policy is detailed on the recruiters page on www.g.o
(under projects/devrel). Again, these policies are the best that the
recruiters team have come up with so far. If you have helpful
suggestions (or serious concerns), by all means bring them up.
> devrel don't have the easiest job in the world, and I'm sure those of us who
> enjoy our freedom of speech don't make it any easier :) I think it'd be
> great to see them conduct their business a little less in the shadows though,
> so that they can maintain the goodwill of the developer community at large.
Fair enough. What do you see as the most egregious cases, and let's
start there.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-19 21:06 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 22:30 ` [gentoo-dev] " Grant Goodyear
@ 2004-07-19 23:03 ` Tom Knight
2 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Tom Knight @ 2004-07-19 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]
>
> Btw, what was that about a probation period *before* cvs access was granted?
> I was never quite clear how the would-be dev in question was supposed to
> successfully complete a probation when he wasn't actually a dev yet, and
> therefore couldn't do anything.
>
Being a new dev, I've recently read all the relevant devrel docs. There's a
two week waiting period before you become a dev during which you should
complete the dev quiz. According to
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/ there is an extra
probationary period after you become a dev:
"Additionally, for 30 days after joining, a new developer is considered to
be in a 'probationary period' in which their mentor is responsible for
actions taken by the new developer. This provides a certain level of
accountability."
Tom
--
Tom Knight
tomk@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomk/tomk.asc
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 18:20 ` [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Ciaran McCreesh
2004-07-19 20:22 ` Corey Shields
2004-07-19 20:44 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2004-07-19 22:19 ` Grant Goodyear
2004-07-19 23:46 ` Deedra Waters
2004-07-20 0:23 ` Kurt Lieber
3 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Grant Goodyear @ 2004-07-19 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3213 bytes --]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Jul 19 2004, 02:20:24PM EDT]
> * The ability to arbitrarily suspend or remove developers (without
> providing notice or reason to the people who actually work with the
> developer in question).
I would agree that devrel has a responsibility to provide notice and/or
reason to the developer in question, but it's not clear to me that the
developer's team needs to be kept apprised of any details other than
"developer foo has been suspended / removed". Removing or suspending a
dev is fairly rare, and generally due to some sort of egregious
behavior, so a notice saying "dev foo will be suspended / removed a week
from tuesday" seems unlikely.
> * The ability to decide to change the mentor for a new developer without
> even bothering to tell the original mentor, let alone providing a reason
> to the people involved.
I don't see anything about mentoring in the policy guide, although I
agree that it would be nice to have something in there. That said, if
this behavior has happened in the past, then I think something went
drastically awry. Please, when something like this happens, either
e-mail devrel@gentoo.org or ombudsman@gentoo.org. We can't fix problems
when we don't know about them.
> * The ability to impose arbitrary restrictions upon what developers are
> and are not allowed to say on IRC and the mailing lists.
To the best of my knowledge, these "arbitrary restrictions" are neither
new nor restrictions. (The beginning of the etiquette portion of the
doc pretty clearly states that the poorly-termed "rules" are not
mandates but strong suggestions.) Since at least the time that I joined
#gentoo-dev has been a clean-language channel, and we have always asked
people with voice or ops in that channel to be reasonably polite.
Surely we can also all agree that kicking / banning people just for the
fun of it is a bad idea?
> I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
> spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
> noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
> developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
> is. Come to think of it, I remember a certain former manager bringing
> this exact point up shortly before he left.
I think you'll find that, in general, devrel is lousy at policing devs.
My experience has been that devrel does not normally get involved until
somebody has gone to the effort of actually complaining to devrel about
something. At that point devrel is obligated to investigate and try to
solve the problem, all with at least a modicum of privacy for any devs
involved. It's an imperfect system, to say the least, which is why
there is also an ombudsman office.
The way I see it, anything mentioned in this doc is fair game for
discussion. The policy guide is _not_ a constitution, it's a guide. If
you don't agree with something in it, by all means provide an
alternative for discussion.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 22:19 ` Grant Goodyear
@ 2004-07-19 23:46 ` Deedra Waters
0 siblings, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Deedra Waters @ 2004-07-19 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Grant Goodyear; +Cc: gentoo-dev
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:19:46 -0400
> From: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet
> ipsos custodes?
>
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Jul 19 2004, 02:20:24PM EDT]
>
> > * The ability to decide to change the mentor for a new developer without
> > even bothering to tell the original mentor, let alone providing a reason
> > to the people involved.
>
> I don't see anything about mentoring in the policy guide, although I
> agree that it would be nice to have something in there. That said, if
> this behavior has happened in the past, then I think something went
> drastically awry. Please, when something like this happens, either
> e-mail devrel@gentoo.org or ombudsman@gentoo.org. We can't fix problems
> when we don't know about them.
>
>
There was only one case where a mentor was changed on a new dev. In this case, the mentor was talked to before hand, and told that this would likely be the case, and why.
If there were any others outside of this one, then I did not know it had happened.
I did not think that a policy reguarding this would need to be written, because it had only happened once, but maybe I was wrong..
> Best,
> g2boojum
>
--
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-19 18:20 ` [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Ciaran McCreesh
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-19 22:19 ` Grant Goodyear
@ 2004-07-20 0:23 ` Kurt Lieber
2004-07-20 1:38 ` Jon Portnoy
2004-07-20 18:07 ` Jason Rhinelander
3 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Kurt Lieber @ 2004-07-20 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:20:24PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> * The ability to arbitrarily suspend or remove developers (without
> providing notice or reason to the people who actually work with the
> developer in question).
I don't think expecting advance notice is reasonable, but I personally
would agree that at least a vague reason is appropriate. (i.e. "He was rude
to a user")
> * The ability to decide to change the mentor for a new developer without
> even bothering to tell the original mentor, let alone providing a reason
> to the people involved.
As I discussed with you on IRC, this was a miscommunication.
> * The ability to impose arbitrary restrictions upon what developers are
> and are not allowed to say on IRC and the mailing lists.
I have seen this and I strongly disagreed with it then and now. I don't
believe it is *ever* appropriate for devrel to censor devs, whether it be
temporarily or permanently. As long as it is done professionally and
courteously, devs should be able to express themselves freely imo.
> I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
> spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
> noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
> developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
> is.
Honestly, it's not devrel's place to decide what their role in the project
is. That responsibility belongs to the developers themselves. If folks
believe devrel is overstepping their bounds, then let's discuss it and work
at re-defining those bounds. After reading the etiquette section of the
handbook this morning, I certainly felt like devrel (of which I am a
member) had gone a bit far.
Please keep in mind, though, that "devrel" isn't a faceless body. It's
made up of fellow volunteers who are trying to do their best. They're
allowed to make mistakes just like the rest of us are. Venting your
frustrations may make you feel better, but I'm not sure it really does much
to solve the actual problem at hand. Bring ideas and suggestions to the
table, but please leave the barbs and venom at home.
--kurt
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 0:23 ` Kurt Lieber
@ 2004-07-20 1:38 ` Jon Portnoy
2004-07-20 10:15 ` Chris Bainbridge
2004-07-20 21:50 ` Donnie Berkholz
2004-07-20 18:07 ` Jason Rhinelander
1 sibling, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jon Portnoy @ 2004-07-20 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:23:23AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> I have seen this and I strongly disagreed with it then and now. I don't
> believe it is *ever* appropriate for devrel to censor devs, whether it be
> temporarily or permanently. As long as it is done professionally and
> courteously, devs should be able to express themselves freely imo.
I absolutely agree. I very much don't want devrel to be in the thought
police business.
>
> > I'm sure devrel aren't actively out to set themselves up as the new
> > spanish inquisition. However, it seems I'm not the only one that's
> > noticed them moving from a "helping developers" role to "policing
> > developers" instead, and I'd like to know what devrel's stance on this
> > is.
>
> Honestly, it's not devrel's place to decide what their role in the project
> is. That responsibility belongs to the developers themselves. If folks
> believe devrel is overstepping their bounds, then let's discuss it and work
> at re-defining those bounds. After reading the etiquette section of the
> handbook this morning, I certainly felt like devrel (of which I am a
> member) had gone a bit far.
>
I also agree here. I have been MIA the past week and am just now getting
caught back up, but everybody please make sure to be noisy about it when
you feel something is inappropriate - just don't be a jerk about it :)
--
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 1:38 ` Jon Portnoy
@ 2004-07-20 10:15 ` Chris Bainbridge
2004-07-20 12:36 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-20 21:50 ` Donnie Berkholz
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Chris Bainbridge @ 2004-07-20 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 02:38, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:23:23AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > I have seen this and I strongly disagreed with it then and now. I don't
> > believe it is *ever* appropriate for devrel to censor devs, whether it be
> > temporarily or permanently. As long as it is done professionally and
> > courteously, devs should be able to express themselves freely imo.
>
> I absolutely agree. I very much don't want devrel to be in the thought
> police business.
Well, this is going to be a can of worms :) I expect people will be evenly
split between the "we can do what we want to do" and "we need rules" camps.
So I will throw in an extreme example - what if a dev was posting racist
literature to news groups from their gentoo email address? What if some
random person on the internet told you to f**k off? How would your feelings
change if they were a redhat employee and sent that email direct from redhat,
rather than being a random? When you act as a gentoo developer, with your
gentoo email address, then people are going to assume that you represent
gentoo.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 10:15 ` Chris Bainbridge
@ 2004-07-20 12:36 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-20 15:43 ` Stuart Herbert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Dylan Carlson @ 2004-07-20 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 6:15 am, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> When you act as a gentoo developer, with your
> gentoo email address, then people are going to assume that you represent
> gentoo.
To a limited extent.
Gentoo is a group of people working on software; not an
ideological/political platform. It's quite unnecessary (and ludicrous)
that someone would have to send from a different email address to express
their views -- what difference does that truly make?
Most people realize that open-source projects are mostly driven by
volunteers, and by that "open"-ness project/organization members are
entitled-- if not encouraged-- to express their own views on anything;
assuming of course they don't make a point of antagonizing people.
This is the beauty of open source software development: in theory, it's
apolitical-- most of our peers don't care about how we dress, our
eccentricities, our views-- as long as we produce something and can manage
to get along with others. At least agree to disagree. The reality is
that we get mucked up in politics too; or more accurately, people who
"speak up" merely to put their thumbprint on things as a way of saying
"hi, I'm here, and I'm Participating." These days, moreso than the past
7-8 years I've been involved in the open source "stuff", I've seen more
people trying to justify their existence by debating countless minutiae on
public mailing lists.
I'm going to expand the scope of this reply, so bear with me.
I won't undermine the argument that perhaps a mistake was made WRT "The
Mentoring Situation", but it has probably been blown (way) out of
proportion. Ultimately it doesn't matter who mentors who as long as it
gets done appropriately. Devrel is the group that makes those decisions.
People impacted by those decisions have a basic right to know why, but
inevitably everyone will miscommunicate something sometime.
If someone feels devrel (or anyone else) isn't handling <foo> correctly,
write a complaint to -dev. Assume first it was an honest mistake. Ask
for clarification. Launching ad hominems on mailing lists is
counterproductive. Gentoo is a human effort; mistakes will be made, so
there's no point in trying to embarrass someone. Have the facts straight
first before assuming that someone has done something specifically to
screw us over.
"Can't we all just get along?" (Rodney King on the L.A. Riots)
When conspiracy theories/labels like "thought police" get bandied about,
that's not addressing issues on a case-by-case basis-- that's attacking
your peers. Disappointing. We're all volunteers, with the same basic
goal of trying to make Gentoo better.
Cheers,
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org]
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 12:36 ` Dylan Carlson
@ 2004-07-20 15:43 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-20 17:55 ` Kurt Lieber
2004-07-20 21:13 ` Deedra Waters
0 siblings, 2 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Stuart Herbert @ 2004-07-20 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2226 bytes --]
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 13:36, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> To a limited extent.
The outside world probably doesn't see / know / understand those limits. And
I'm not sure every developer has the same viewpoint on what those limits are
either.
> These days, moreso than the past
> 7-8 years I've been involved in the open source "stuff", I've seen more
> people trying to justify their existence by debating countless minutiae on
> public mailing lists.
Do you think this is a problem that Gentoo is suffering from?
> Ultimately it doesn't matter who mentors who as long as it
> gets done appropriately.
Obviously it did matter to somebody at the time, otherwise a change in mentor
wouldn't have happened. Also, what does it say about confidence in the dev
who is no longer to be the mentor? You say it doesn't matter, but it does
have an impact on how people feel.
Also, from my perspective, this matters going forward. It makes sense to me
that devs who are working on web-based apps are mentored by someone from the
existing herd - or at least that we know they are coming. To help with this,
if I put together a webapp-specific set of questions, could they be
incorporated into the quiz?
I do have a concern that sometimes we try too hard to convert users into devs
when they're not ready, and on the one occaison where I was involved, my
concerns were dismissed.
I don't know how other herds feel about this.
> Devrel is the group that makes those decisions.
From the previous emails, I'm reading it that
a) It's not clear when/if devrel took on the role of making those decisions
(isn't that what recruiters is for?)
b) It's not clear that devrel *is* the group that makes those decisions
I'm not debating that someone probably has to make those decisions.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/
GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 15:43 ` Stuart Herbert
@ 2004-07-20 17:55 ` Kurt Lieber
2004-07-20 21:13 ` Deedra Waters
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Kurt Lieber @ 2004-07-20 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Stuart Herbert; +Cc: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:43:15PM +0100 or thereabouts, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Ultimately it doesn't matter who mentors who as long as it
> > gets done appropriately.
>
> Obviously it did matter to somebody at the time, otherwise a change in mentor
> wouldn't have happened. Also, what does it say about confidence in the dev
> who is no longer to be the mentor? You say it doesn't matter, but it does
> have an impact on how people feel.
Guys -- please drop this particular point. It was a miscommunication
between the mentor, the mentee, the lead for that project and devrel. It
was not a deliberate act.
There are enough areas where things can be improved. We don't need to
start making them up. :)
--kurt
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 15:43 ` Stuart Herbert
2004-07-20 17:55 ` Kurt Lieber
@ 2004-07-20 21:13 ` Deedra Waters
2004-07-20 21:43 ` Stuart Herbert
1 sibling, 1 reply; 36+ messages in thread
From: Deedra Waters @ 2004-07-20 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Stuart Herbert; +Cc: gentoo-dev
I did not dismiss your concerns, I just wanted a second opinion on the new dev in question, since you were pretty much not around. The second opinion had nothing to do with your judgement, but more of "was enough time put into talking to this person, and seeing how much they really understood."
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:43:15 +0100
> From: Stuart Herbert <stuart@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet
> ipsos custodes?
>
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 13:36, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> > To a limited extent.
>
> The outside world probably doesn't see / know / understand those limits. And
> I'm not sure every developer has the same viewpoint on what those limits are
> either.
>
> > These days, moreso than the past
> > 7-8 years I've been involved in the open source "stuff", I've seen more
> > people trying to justify their existence by debating countless minutiae on
> > public mailing lists.
>
> Do you think this is a problem that Gentoo is suffering from?
>
> > Ultimately it doesn't matter who mentors who as long as it
> > gets done appropriately.
>
> Obviously it did matter to somebody at the time, otherwise a change in mentor
> wouldn't have happened. Also, what does it say about confidence in the dev
> who is no longer to be the mentor? You say it doesn't matter, but it does
> have an impact on how people feel.
>
> Also, from my perspective, this matters going forward. It makes sense to me
> that devs who are working on web-based apps are mentored by someone from the
> existing herd - or at least that we know they are coming. To help with this,
> if I put together a webapp-specific set of questions, could they be
> incorporated into the quiz?
>
> I do have a concern that sometimes we try too hard to convert users into devs
> when they're not ready, and on the one occaison where I was involved, my
> concerns were dismissed.
>
> I don't know how other herds feel about this.
>
> > Devrel is the group that makes those decisions.
>
> From the previous emails, I'm reading it that
>
> a) It's not clear when/if devrel took on the role of making those decisions
> (isn't that what recruiters is for?)
> b) It's not clear that devrel *is* the group that makes those decisions
>
> I'm not debating that someone probably has to make those decisions.
>
> Best regards,
> Stu
>
--
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 1:38 ` Jon Portnoy
2004-07-20 10:15 ` Chris Bainbridge
@ 2004-07-20 21:50 ` Donnie Berkholz
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Donnie Berkholz @ 2004-07-20 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: avenj; +Cc: gentoo-dev
Jon Portnoy said:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:23:23AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>> I have seen this and I strongly disagreed with it then and now. I
>> don't believe it is *ever* appropriate for devrel to censor devs,
>> whether it be temporarily or permanently. As long as it is done
>> professionally and courteously, devs should be able to express
>> themselves freely imo.
>
> I absolutely agree. I very much don't want devrel to be in the thought
> police business.
In a (hypothetical) situation where a developer is behaving
inappropriately and seems to ignore repeated warnings, I see two answers:
1) Prior restraint based on reasonable expectation of continued
misbehavior in a specific area
2) Suspension/dismissal based on past behavior
They both accomplish the same thing -- preventing someone from behaving in
a manner unbefitting a Gentoo developer while in that person's role as a
Gentoo representative. If you look closely, these options are really
different levels of the same scale -- a developer suspended for certain
actions is unlikely to do them again. Also note that there is _no way_ for
anyone in Gentoo to truly apply prior restraint to a Gentoo developer. We
can't stop you from doing anything -- we can just apply consequences if
you do.
Note that I am not saying anything about in which cases such consequences
should be applied. There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, as
long as it doesn't invade the rights of others.
Example: I hate cafeterias. I express this opinion by burning them, which
invades the rights of others to eat there.
Example: I hate GNU Queue. I express this opinion by trolling its mailing
list, expressing my extremely low opinions without any factual
justification, going out of my way to annoy the developer and user
communities and generally making the whole atmosphere quite unfriendly.
Other suggestions on how to deal with this are welcome.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] The Gentoo Developer Handbook - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2004-07-20 0:23 ` Kurt Lieber
2004-07-20 1:38 ` Jon Portnoy
@ 2004-07-20 18:07 ` Jason Rhinelander
1 sibling, 0 replies; 36+ messages in thread
From: Jason Rhinelander @ 2004-07-20 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:20:24PM +0100 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>* The ability to impose arbitrary restrictions upon what developers are
>>and are not allowed to say on IRC and the mailing lists.
>
> I have seen this and I strongly disagreed with it then and now. I don't
> believe it is *ever* appropriate for devrel to censor devs, whether it be
> temporarily or permanently. As long as it is done professionally and
> courteously, devs should be able to express themselves freely imo.
That appears to be what the recently posted documents laid out. It
seems to me from those documents that the only time censorship would
come into play would be when devs are _not_ expressing themselves
professionally and courteously. I didn't see anything that talked about
or indicated "arbitrary restrictions" - the restrictions seemed clearly
laid out for cases where devs are acting inappropriately.
>
> --kurt
-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 36+ messages in thread