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 1OP9yR-0000b7-HO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E28BE0B3A; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C47E0B31 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2EB1B404D for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYa5k1nsrhck for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B09F1B40A3 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OP9y2-0003I9-3H for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:56:54 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:56:54 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:56:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org connect(): No such file or directory From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:56:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4C196595.20600@gentoo.org> 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=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT a971f44 branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: f6f8dc0f-52d1-430e-9926-4e33f2d9ffed X-Archives-Hash: 7b18d878df339c83304a2087c0686937 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: >> =C2=A04) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0and the council at the same time (as the council is where= issues >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0with devrel are taken to). >=20 > 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. >=20 > i.e. it isnt a problem There's also a practical problem in such a restriction. DevRel is=20 understaffed. I've seen observations to the effect that most developers=20 aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in=20 reference to the conflict resolution subgroup, and by the nature of the=20 problem, this isn't likely to change. It's also quite true that those interested in the admin aspects including= =20 conflict resolution are likely to be drawn to both devrel and council. =20 Based on the above, we're already picking from a limited subset. Do we=20 /really/ want to restrict it further? /Can/ we restrict it further,=20 without severe practical effects due to restricting the number of folks=20 willing to run for either council or devrel, if not both? Will the resul= t=20 be a drop in the quality of candidates willing to run for either team? I= f=20 there's five slots and only six people running, how much of a choice is=20 there, really? What about if only three accept their nominations? Will=20 that be the result, particularly if the other suggestions are implemented= =20 as well, and people are elected for devrel-conflictres directly? In an infinitely large group, with an infinite number of potential=20 candidates and thus an infinite number willing to run, the idea has=20 merit. As the group gets smaller, dangers appear. Is the group of Gento= o=20 devels small enough, and self-selected enough against interest in this=20 area, that the dangers cancel out or worse the positives? That I don't=20 know, as I'm not a dev and certainly not on devrel or council, with the=20 experience to say, but from various comments I've read over the years fro= m=20 those qualified to know, it's at minimum, a close call. Would anybody with better insight into these things care to comment?=20 Perhaps I read into the various comments something that wasn't there, or=20 maybe those making the comments were ill-informed themselves, or it may b= e=20 that the problems are already corrected and it'd be fine now. I don't=20 know, but I'm worried about it, thus this post. --=20 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