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

[Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>]

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