From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OPSqZ-0002Al-M4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:06:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C109E0777; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC7FE06AF for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5I46HA1099469 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:06:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:06:17 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel Message-ID: <20100618060617.6800ada6@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <1276800454.2335.1@NeddySeagoon> References: <4C196595.20600@gentoo.org> <1276800454.2335.1@NeddySeagoon> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 04ef4822-40ef-441d-b66e-b3369e13df6b X-Archives-Hash: 05f3f13b5b5d00b370a72e13b57cb68c On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:47:34 +0100 Roy Bamford wrote: > I'm against this idea - conflict resolution, I prefer the term > mediation, is not something that the typical Gentoo developer is very > good at. For sure, they have been involved in conflicts themselves > but rarely, if ever, as a mediator. > > I think very few developers would stand for the role - its hard work > ask any parent who has mediated between their offspring. > I would prefer mediation to draw from a pool of volunteers, probably > vetted by some trusted group and assigned to issues after their > neutrality in any particular case had been determined by some method > involving the protagonists. Elected mediators may well turn out to be > unsuitable for the role. The problem I see is that electing a pool of people to look into this means opening the proverbial cans of worms to a wider public that we have so far hidden away and resolved quietly. I would think that where devrel fails, if and when and so on, the higher authority to appeal to (the council) is already in place. But then you could join devrel as a volunteer, I gather. I wonder if that's what I should start doing now. jer