[gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 214 bytes --]

How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just 
one commit:

http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19

-- 
Best regards, Wulf

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Fabian Groffen]

On 27-04-2008 22:06:30 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just 
> one commit:
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19

I noticed the same, but there probably was a better way to put attention
to this remarkable policy.
I assume it is just a better, more explicit wording of already existing
policy, considering the original version.

The policy appears worrysome to me, but in my opinion seems not to be
introduced by this commit.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 353 bytes --]

Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti:
> How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just 
> one commit:
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19
> 

Please use the appropriate mailing list. Nothing technical here. This 
thread belongs to -project.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Chrissy Fullam]

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just
> one commit:
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/poli
> cy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19

Neither Developer Relations as a whole or myself as the Lead acts without a
system for checks and balances. If you read the policy change, such a system
is in place. And if you notice, this 'power' is authorized by our elected
Council.

As this change directly affects developers only, please take further
discussion to the Gentoo-core ML.


Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 




-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Luca Barbato]

Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just 
> one commit:
> 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19
> 

Those are quite strong words.

As grobian said it doesn't change at all what has been the normal way to 
address certain situations.

The council has the last word as usual and the council can ask infra to 
perform such tasks.

We spend time on gentoo not because we seek power but because we like 
help improving something we consider valuable.

Having an extrema ratio/last resort in order to protect it isn't that 
uncommon.

Council was notified in advance of the written policy change and 
approved it.

musikc never abused her position and I'm confident she won't in the future.

On the other hand we got MANY complaints about your behavior lately.

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Steve Long]

Petteri Räty wrote:

> Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti:
>> How to gain power the easy way and obsolete conflict resolution in just
>> one commit:
>> 
>>
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml?r1=1.18&r2=1.19
>> 
> 
> Please use the appropriate mailing list. Nothing technical here. This
> thread belongs to -project.
> 
Indeed. I agree it simply clarifies the existing policy, in that devrel lead
or infra previously had a call on whether an issue were critical.

It'll still be transparent and a lead who used that power lightly would soon
get relieved of duty one would hope. (If not kick up a stink then, not now,
as nothing's really changed.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] DevRel policy update

[Richard Brown]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Chrissy Fullam <musikc@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>  As this change directly affects developers only, please take further
>  discussion to the Gentoo-core ML.

I'd like to, but I appear to have been unsubscribed from that list.
Assuming that my retirement and this change in policy are not
unrelated, I'm afraid you appear to have not followed your own policy.
The new policy reads: "The critical nature of an escalation may be
determined by the Developer Relations Lead or Infrastructure, for
security-related issues, that which would endanger Gentoo, or our
reputation. An issue that is deemed critical does not need further
justification in addition to stating which of the above situations it
falls under." In the email you sent kindly sent me informing me of my
retirement:

> In light of the escalation and review of recent issues, you have had your
> developer rights revoked for your repeated and aggravated behavior despite
> numerous attempts to correct that. Gentoo will not tolerate these continued
> repeat offenses and as such Developer Relations has acted under Developer
> Policy:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml. Per that policy you have
> the right to appeal this decision to Gentoo Council.
>

You make no mention of the issue being critical, or under which of the
two criteria I should have been retired under.

Please ask infra to restore my access until such time as you are able
to follow your own policy for conflict resolution. I'll be waiting for
a proper bug that I can read that explains what I did to whom, and
when and how they complained.

Regards,
-- 
Richard Brown
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list