[gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Hello!


yngwin's devaway message still reads

  "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".

yngwin retired.  I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.


I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:

 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public

      Idea: If you share private information you have a right
            to know with whom you share.

 2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict
    resolution with distinct aliases.

 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
    team just like we do with the council.

 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
    and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
    with devrel are taken to).

      Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel
            I can tell this dossn't work well.  I suppose that
            Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better.

      Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members
               nominated for the upcoming council election.
               As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be
               understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the
               council and increasing mine as a result.  However, as I
               propose to start over with a developer voted conflict
               resolution team this is not the case.  The only
               implication is that if they make it to the council
               they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team.


DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on
that working well.  If you care about this please make yourself heard.

Thanks,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> 
> yngwin's devaway message still reads
> 
>   "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
> 
> yngwin retired.  I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.

Sebastian,

not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a
complete picture about what happened.

> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
> 
>  1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public
> 
>       Idea: If you share private information you have a right
>             to know with whom you share.

I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
Relations project members is private.
You can check the alias members directly by running "grep devrel
/var/mail/master.aliases" on woodpecker and you can check the project
members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/

>  2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict
>     resolution with distinct aliases.

There are subgroups in the DevRel team, including recruiters and
undertakers, and there are specific aliases for those - recruiters and
retirement. The conflict resolution is handled through the devrel alias
as the Ombudsman project was dissolved 1 or 2 years ago.
You can check the membership to the subgroups in the DevRel page.

>  3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
>     team just like we do with the council.

AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict
resolution members by "popularity" is a very bad idea.

>  4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>     and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>     with devrel are taken to).

The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to
alert developers to possible conflicts.
To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that
disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it
were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an
agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to "appeal" to the
council.

>       Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel
>             I can tell this dossn't work well.  I suppose that
>             Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better.
> 
>       Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members
>                nominated for the upcoming council election.
>                As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be
>                understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the
>                council and increasing mine as a result.  However, as I
>                propose to start over with a developer voted conflict
>                resolution team this is not the case.  The only
>                implication is that if they make it to the council
>                they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team.

My response to your email has nothing to do with the above and to make
it crystal clear, this is my personal opinion and doesn't represent the
global view of the DevRel team or any other team I am a member of.

> DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on
> that working well.  If you care about this please make yourself heard.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=1QFB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Ben de Groot]

On 17 June 2010 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> yngwin's devaway message still reads
>>
>>   "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
>>
>> yngwin retired.  I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
>> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
>> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.
>
> Sebastian,
>
> not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a
> complete picture about what happened.

I've been in contact with Sebastian since the beginning of my conflict
with Calchan, and kept him in the loop. Apart from anything that might
have taken place behind the closed doors of DevRel that I myself don't
know about either, he has a good picture of what happened.


>>  4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>>     and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>>     with devrel are taken to).
>
> The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to
> alert developers to possible conflicts.
> To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that
> disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it
> were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an
> agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to "appeal" to the
> council.

I indicated to Sebastian that if DevRel's verdict in my case would
turn out to be negative, that I am not inclined to appeal to Council.
As two of the most influential DevRel members happen to also be two of
the most influential Council members, I would not expect a different
outcome.

I think there is a conflict of interest here, and I agree with
Sebastian that it would be better if that were avoided.

Cheers,
Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Jorge,


On 06/17/10 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>  1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public
> 
> I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
> Relations project members is private.
> You can check the alias members directly by running "grep devrel
> /var/mail/master.aliases" on woodpecker and you can check the project
> members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/

I see.  I didn't know about /var/mail/master.aliases.  I assumed that I
would have found it with something like

  find /var/mail/alias/ | grep devrel

if it were public and thefore assumed it to be private.  Sorry.


> [..] in my opinion choosing conflict
> resolution members by "popularity" is a very bad idea.

In my understanding people voting on candidates for a conflict
resolution team vote for them with faith they will do a good job on that
position later.  How come you expect that to be driven by popularity?

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 06/17/10 16:37, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
>> Relations project members is private.

Also, Willinks reports the alias to be empty, unlike with other aliases:

  [00:44] <sping> expn devrel
  [00:44] <willikins> devrel =

A question of rbu just made me remember ...



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/17/10 16:37, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>> I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
>>> Relations project members is private.
>
> Also, Willinks reports the alias to be empty, unlike with other aliases:
>
>  [00:44] <sping> expn devrel
>  [00:44] <willikins> devrel =
>
> A question of rbu just made me remember ...

This is an implementation detail of willikins (it only has access to a
subset of aliases.)  Note that the very existence of that command is
based on a random comment I made about similar functionality I saw
somewhere else.  I don't think it was ever meant to be exhaustive,
merely useful.

I pointed out the /var/mail 'security problem' to robin sometime last
year and IIRC he responded that he was aware of the master.aliases
file and was fine with it being readable.

>
>
>
> Sebastian
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Richard Freeman]

On 06/16/2010 08:33 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>   3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
>>      team just like we do with the council.
>
> AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict
> resolution members by "popularity" is a very bad idea.

Well, as long as the council remains the board of appeals and it is 
elected, I don't have a problem.

I'd also go a step further and say that devrel members serve at the 
pleasure of the council.  Some might debate that.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>  4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>    and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>    with devrel are taken to).

i have yet to see this being necessary.  the one or two times there
was a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time
and cleanly resolved.

i.e. it isnt a problem
-mike

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:41:21 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>  4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>>    and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>>    with devrel are taken to).
> 
> i have yet to see this being necessary.  the one or two times there was
> a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time and
> cleanly resolved.
> 
> i.e. it isnt a problem

There's also a practical problem in such a restriction.  DevRel is 
understaffed.  I've seen observations to the effect that most developers 
aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in 
reference to the conflict resolution subgroup, and by the nature of the 
problem, this isn't likely to change.

It's also quite true that those interested in the admin aspects including 
conflict resolution are likely to be drawn to both devrel and council.  
Based on the above, we're already picking from a limited subset.  Do we 
/really/ want to restrict it further?  /Can/ we restrict it further, 
without severe practical effects due to restricting the number of folks 
willing to run for either council or devrel, if not both?  Will the result 
be a drop in the quality of candidates willing to run for either team?  If 
there's five slots and only six people running, how much of a choice is 
there, really?  What about if only three accept their nominations?  Will 
that be the result, particularly if the other suggestions are implemented 
as well, and people are elected for devrel-conflictres directly?

In an infinitely large group, with an infinite number of potential 
candidates and thus an infinite number willing to run, the idea has 
merit.  As the group gets smaller, dangers appear.  Is the group of Gentoo 
devels small enough, and self-selected enough against interest in this 
area, that the dangers cancel out or worse the positives?  That I don't 
know, as I'm not a dev and certainly not on devrel or council, with the 
experience to say, but from various comments I've read over the years from 
those qualified to know, it's at minimum, a close call.

Would anybody with better insight into these things care to comment? 
Perhaps I read into the various comments something that wasn't there, or 
maybe those making the comments were ill-informed themselves, or it may be 
that the problems are already corrected and it'd be fine now.  I don't 
know, but I'm worried about it, thus this post.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Duncan,


On 06/17/10 09:56, Duncan wrote:
> DevRel is 
> understaffed.  I've seen observations to the effect that most developers 
> aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in 
> reference to the conflict resolution subgroup

when I offered to join DevRel last time in reply to a thread called
"Devrel needs new members" Petteri told me:

  "The amount of interest has surprised me so I'll first need
   to talk with existing members to see how many makes sense to
   train in at this point."

I'm unsure if that refered to conflict resolution, recruiting or both.
Petteri?

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

On 17.6.2010 17.10, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Duncan,
> 
> 
> On 06/17/10 09:56, Duncan wrote:
>> DevRel is 
>> understaffed.  I've seen observations to the effect that most developers 
>> aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in 
>> reference to the conflict resolution subgroup
> 
> when I offered to join DevRel last time in reply to a thread called
> "Devrel needs new members" Petteri told me:
> 
>   "The amount of interest has surprised me so I'll first need
>    to talk with existing members to see how many makes sense to
>    train in at this point."
> 
> I'm unsure if that refered to conflict resolution, recruiting or both.
> Petteri?
> 

We had interest in all areas of DevRel operations. I know I am a bottle
neck at the moment. I didn't actively seek this position but accepted
nomination when asked to. Currently my priority are the three GSoC
projects I am the project owner for. If other (older) DevRel members
feel like training new members they are free to do so.

Regards,
Petteri

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Duncan]

Petteri Räty posted on Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:52:15 +0200 as excerpted:

> On 17.6.2010 17.10, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> Duncan,
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/17/10 09:56, Duncan wrote:
>>> DevRel is
>>> understaffed.  I've seen observations to the effect that most
>>> developers aren't interested in getting involved in that area,
>>> particularly in reference to the conflict resolution subgroup
>> 
>> when I offered to join DevRel last time in reply to a thread called
>> "Devrel needs new members" Petteri told me:
>> 
>>   "The amount of interest has surprised me so I'll first need
>>    to talk with existing members to see how many makes sense to train
>>    in at this point."

Thanks.  That's exactly the sort of answer I needed.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:00:21 +0200, Sebastian Pipping
<sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> yngwin's devaway message still reads
> 
>   "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
> 
> yngwin retired.  I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.

How do you have "enough insight" to know this stuff? Was it public? I
consider myself pretty active in the community and don't know a thing
about yngwin's case. It is all pretty vague to me. /me shrugs.

> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
> <snip>

I can't comment on the rest due to the above.

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

On 17.6.2010 2.00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> 
> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
> 

Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. I also find
it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this
thread but I have no objections to having discussions about how devrel
works. Let's have any further discussion on the proper mailing list (I
set Reply-To with the hopes of moving it there).

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Petteri,


On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project.

that's what I am referring to with "tone in Gentoo".
I want the other 80% of you on the council.

In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing
list with a fraction of subscribers.  I wrote here on purpose.

Among the very first things a Gentoo dev learns is that the
gentoo-project mailing list is a list for topics no one really cares about.
If you ask me we should resolve that list and merge it into gentoo-dev.
It's note a pure approach, but it could work better.


> I also find
> it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this
> thread

In my eyes these issues are something that the whole Gentoo project
needs to know about and to decide upon, not DevRel itself.

Especially discussing to replace the team of conflict resolvers with a
group of elected people isn't something I expect to work well on an
inner discussion with DevRel.  My latest discussion with DevRel (and
it's ending) may have added to it.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

On 17.6.2010 17.00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Petteri,
> 
> 
> On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project.
> 
> that's what I am referring to with "tone in Gentoo".
> I want the other 80% of you on the council.
> 

We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when
required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what
I wanted to communicate with my message. It would just increase the time
needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood.
A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand.

> In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing
> list with a fraction of subscribers.  I wrote here on purpose.
> 

If a thing is important enough then you should use gentoo-dev-announce
under the current rules.

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Ben de Groot]

On 17 June 2010 17:45, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
> background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
> word for please.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Unless Finnish is not your
native language. One of my Finnish friends (we've since lost touch)
was one of the most chatty persons I've ever known. He may have been
uncharacteristic for a Finn, but even so. Ole hyvä, don't blame it on
your language.

> A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand.

I like short and to the point too. But we run the risk of being
misunderstood nonetheless.

>> In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing
>> list with a fraction of subscribers.  I wrote here on purpose.
>
> If a thing is important enough then you should use gentoo-dev-announce
> under the current rules.

That's not a list meant for discussion. I think Sebastian made the
right call here.

Cheers,
Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

On 17.6.2010 18.20, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 17 June 2010 17:45, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
>> background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
>> word for please.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Unless Finnish is not your
> native language. One of my Finnish friends (we've since lost touch)
> was one of the most chatty persons I've ever known. He may have been
> uncharacteristic for a Finn, but even so. Ole hyvä, don't blame it on
> your language.
> 

Ole hyvä is not something you would use when ordering a beer:
English: A beer, please.
Finnish: Yksi olut.

I didn't say Finns are not chatty. Among friends Finns can be very
chatty. Do you consider Finnish communication the same as in US?

> 
> That's not a list meant for discussion. I think Sebastian made the
> right call here.
> 

Under current rules you cross post with gentoo-dev-announce to
gentoo-project and set Reply-To to gentoo-project. That is what I have
been teaching all new recruits and will continue to do so until we
change the rules (I am not against changing the rules if most people
feel gentoo-project is not useful any more).

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Patrick Lauer]

Let me cut out one or two pieces I consider very important:

> We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
> background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
> word for please.

Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with
germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english.
For example "Sit down!" is acceptable in all situations in german, but
is slightly rude in english and brutally rude in french. There you'd say
"Would you please sit down?" in most social situations, unless you want
to anger someone.
(German carries most of the difference in the inflection and doesn't
need multiple phrases to express the same thing)

You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless
someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in
translation. And there's little we can do about it because many people
don't notice these translation issues or don't know english well enough
to express themselves with the needed refinement.

> A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand.
... and the easiest to misunderstand.

Either way we lose ;)


Personally I think the tone has improved a lot over the last $timeunit,
I also have my personal theory how that happened, but I don't want to be
burnt as a heretic. So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop
floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay?

All the best,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Patrick,


On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with
> germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english.
> For example "Sit down!" is acceptable in all situations in german,

maybe acceptable, sure not polite or friendly.


> You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless
> someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in
> translation.

I understand "extrapolating friction" as having the receiver fixing
potential miscommunication.  Is that what you meant?  While it may work
for you it's an inversion of responsibility again to me.  I want Gentoo
to be attractive to users without that skill, too.


> And there's little we can do about it because many people
> don't notice these translation issues or don't know english well enough
> to express themselves with the needed refinement.

Things we can do include raising awareness and keep trying.


> So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop
> floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay?

Are you asking me to shut up?
In case floodmailing refers to me: I'm not done yet.

We have more or less ignored non-technical issues for quite some time
concentrating on technical issues as that's easier.  The thing is:
Technical things work much better in Gentoo than non-technical things.

Let me repeat: Technical is not our main problem.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Patrick Lauer]

On 06/17/10 22:09, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> On 06/17/10 18:21, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Now of course this will cause friction. I've noticed it especially with
>> germanic and slavic languages that are more terse than english.
>> For example "Sit down!" is acceptable in all situations in german,
> 
> maybe acceptable, sure not polite or friendly.

"Hey, komm, setz dich."

"Ey, du Arsch, setz dich, sonst schmeiss ich dich raus!"

exactly the same words, just defined by the context - and if you leave
that away it's only intonation.
The english or french equivalent ends up as different sentences ...

>> You can extrapolate the friction this can and will cause. So unless
>> someone actively personally insults me I'll just assume it got lost in
>> translation.
> 
> I understand "extrapolating friction" as having the receiver fixing
> potential miscommunication.  Is that what you meant?
I meant to say "you can easily guess how much trouble that causes"
And here we see how difficult languages can be as you managed to get
something quite different out of it ...

[snip]

>> So let's not get too hung up on single words, stop
>> floodmailing and resume fixing bugs, mmmhkay?
> 
> Are you asking me to shut up?
> In case floodmailing refers to me: I'm not done yet.

You're one of the more persistent persons on the mailing lists.
I don't see the point of arguing the same thing for days with no end in
sight ... for me, personally, there are better ways to use my time. For
example reading the quizzes my recruits are working on and pointing out
the problems they still have. Or bugwrangling a bit just for fun.

> We have more or less ignored non-technical issues for quite some time
> concentrating on technical issues as that's easier.  The thing is:
> Technical things work much better in Gentoo than non-technical things.
> 
> Let me repeat: Technical is not our main problem.

Ok then. What's the possible solutions? Which options do we have, what
are their advantages and disadvantages? Why didn't we apply that
solution before?

Just complaining that things suck and life isn't fair won't help.
Finding a goal and working towards it until you are done will.

Have fun,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Sebastian Pipping]

Petteri,


On 06/17/10 17:45, Petteri Räty wrote:
> We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
> background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
> word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when
> required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what
> I wanted to communicate with my message.

the point of this thread is not the introduction of "sugar coating"
(pretending to be nice in my words) as you call it.  To me it's about
turning Gentoo into a friendly and helpful community. (So it's actually
not just about tone but the things coming before the tone, too.)


> It would just increase the time
> needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood.
> A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand.

Yes, being friendly may take more words.  Isn't it in your own best
interest to have the other side not get pissed?  Isn't that worth a few
more words?

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1649 bytes --]

On 06/17/2010 11:29 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Petteri,
> 
> 
> On 06/17/10 17:45, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> We communicate in English but that doesn't mean we all the same cultural
>> background. My native language doesn't do small talk and doesn't have a
>> word for please. Of course when writing English I try use please when
>> required by the other party but sugar coating wouldn't have changed what
>> I wanted to communicate with my message.
> 
> the point of this thread is not the introduction of "sugar coating"
> (pretending to be nice in my words) as you call it.  To me it's about
> turning Gentoo into a friendly and helpful community. (So it's actually
> not just about tone but the things coming before the tone, too.)
> 

On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project.
>
> that's what I am referring to with "tone in Gentoo".
> I want the other 80% of you on the council.
>

How would you have liked this to be written then?

> 
>> It would just increase the time
>> needed to write the message and raise the risk of getting misunderstood.
>> A short and to the point message is the easiest to understand.
> 
> Yes, being friendly may take more words.  Isn't it in your own best
> interest to have the other side not get pissed?  Isn't that worth a few
> more words?
> 

I don't see anything unfriendly in my first reply. This thread doesn't
have anything technical and as just doesn't belong to gentoo-dev. As
DevRel lead I think it's my duty to remind developers how our mailing
lists are meant to be used.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

>
>
>  4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>    and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>    with devrel are taken to).
>
>

Excellent point. Furthermore, in every Democratic foundation in this planet
the authority entity is completely detached to the disciplinary one

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 499 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

On 2010.06.17 01:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello!
[snip]
> 
>       Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members
>                nominated for the upcoming council election.
>                As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be
>                understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the
>                council and increasing mine as a result.  However, as 
> I
>                propose to start over with a developer voted conflict
>                resolution team this is not the case.  The only
>                implication is that if they make it to the council
>                they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution
> team.
> 
> 
> DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend 
> on
> that working well.  If you care about this please make yourself 
> heard.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> 
> 

Sebastian,

You are suggesting that devrel/council members don't know of the 
conflict of interests beforehand and/or that they fail to disqualify 
themselves from an active part in either the devrel or council part of 
the proceedings. I admit that the possibility exists under present 
rules.

Enforced division of responsibility can be a good thing in places but 
I'm not convinced that this is one of those places. That said, I would 
not want devrel to become a subset of council, nor council to become a 
subset of devrel.  Its just for that reason that the Foundation bylaws 
forbid any individual serving as a trustee and on council at the same 
time.  Maybe I am coming round to supporting your view after all.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

On 2010.06.17 01:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello!
> 
[snip]
> 
>  3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
>     team just like we do with the council.
> 
[snip]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian
> 

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.

For myself, I would not stand for election to this role but I might
volunteer to help out from time to time.   

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:47:34 +0100
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> 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