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 1OUiVy-0004q3-Op for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:50:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59ABCE0B61; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F861E0B57 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (e177089114.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.177.89.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DD771B4021 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C2E0AC5.5000302@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:50:29 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100419 Thunderbird/3.0.4 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Council manifesto of sping References: <1276977363.2635.0@NeddySeagoon> <4C1F9460.2020803@gentoo.org> <4C1FDB72.3020609@gentoo.org> <4C2A9394.3060307@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 761d7028-a718-44d5-94ad-4869c6e29328 X-Archives-Hash: 55ccb9741c704a1e2813b52561c7a584 Arun, On 07/02/10 16:23, Arun Raghavan wrote: > The problem is not noise. The problem is that an issue that needs to > be escalated to Devrel could not be resolved by the involved > developers or the people who were present at the time. Moreover, there > are strong emotions from the devs (and often their friends too), and > people will end up saying things that they may eventually regret. > > Dragging this out in public /will/ polarise the community, result in > more public conflict, very likely without a complete picture of the > story on both sides being available. Devrel's purpose is to avoid > this, and I believe this does work (we can debate their efficacy or > how things can improve, but saying it doesn't work is unfair, IMO). I > don't see how your proposal would deal with this fallout. I think we're mixing up a few things by now: - What cases should be handled in public, which shouldn't - Does DevRel work effectively or not - The special case of banning people All I want to say right here is that: - Not everything needs to be handle loudly and public (if I made that impression) - I do believe in need for fundamental changes on DevRel (as introduced in a another thread earlier) For the rest I propose to take this offline. Best, Sebastian