[gentoo-devrel] 20050607 Meeting Logs

[gentoo-devrel] 20050607 Meeting Logs

[Tim Yamin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 28 bytes --]

Fresh from the oven; enjoy!

[-- Attachment #1.2: gentoo-devrel-20050607.log --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 31176 bytes --]

19:00 :::: plasmaroo changed the topic of #gentoo-devrel to: Gentoo Developer Relations || Next meeting: NOW!
19:00 < spb_> ka0ttic: he had something to actually change between those two though ;p
19:00 <@slarti> ka0ttic: but, it's up to you :) Probably leave it for now though.
19:00 <@ka0ttic> ah ok. good I'll leave it be.
19:00 <@plasmaroo> jhuebel|afk: ^^
19:00 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: ^^
19:00 <@ka0ttic> I'd rather not break anything
19:00 <@dmwaters> sorry, was talking to corey:p
19:01 :::: kloeri_!~kloeri@kloeri.developer.gentoo has joined #gentoo-devrel
19:01 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: log away
19:01 <@plasmaroo> Heya kloeri_
19:01 <@dmwaters> ok
19:01 <@dostrow> heya kloeri_
19:01 <@dmwaters> so
19:01 < kloeri_> hi
19:01 <@slarti> hi kloeri_ :)
19:02 <@dmwaters> with the number of people here, i think we should do this like we do managers meetings
19:02 **** kloeri_ waves :)
19:02 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: WFM.
19:02 <@slarti> dmwaters: +m, then open floor when the agenda has been covered? cool.
19:02 <@plasmaroo> slarti: Yep.
19:02 <@dmwaters> basically, moderate the channel, then life it at the end q/a
19:02 <@plasmaroo> Anything anybody has to say before we begin?
19:02 <@dmwaters> yes
19:02 <@dmwaters> erm, brb, got to help the boss
19:03 <@kingtaco|laptop> party time?
19:03 <@plasmaroo> Guess not, if you need +v for whatever reason /msg me.
19:03 :::: mode/#gentoo-devrel: +m by plasmaroo
19:04 <@dmwaters> ok
19:04 <@dmwaters> back
19:04 <@dmwaters> so
19:04 <@dmwaters> origionally we were going to discuss better ways to handle complaints
19:05 <@dmwaters> then, urilith came up with a proposal which i like, and i get the impression others like as well
19:05 <@dmwaters> have you  all seen his email to gentoo-devrel?
19:05 <@jhuebel|afk> sorry I'm late.
19:05 <@dostrow> yup
19:05 :::: jhuebel|afk is now known as jhuebel
19:05 <@dostrow> heya jhuebel
19:06 <@ka0ttic> I like the proposal
19:06 <@jhuebel> Me too.
19:06 <@plasmaroo> Proposal++
19:06 <@dmwaters> i'm suggesting that we adopt the proposal
19:06 <@dmwaters> it does need some work
19:06 <@dmwaters> however, for the most part, i think it's fine
19:07 <@slarti> right. The managers thing is tricky.
19:07 <@jhuebel> Mainly fine tuning, but overall it's great.
19:07 <@dostrow> I think it's a fine springboard
19:07 **** jhuebel nods.
19:07 <@dmwaters> dostrow thinks that we need more people to make it work
19:07 <@slarti> with the new metastructure, what happens if a devrel member becomes a manager all of a sudden? giving up a post just because of that would be problematic
19:08 <@dmwaters> i think with 5 judges and 10 investigators though, i think we're ok at least in that department
19:08 <@plasmaroo> Yeah.
19:08 <@jhuebel> Well, if judicial group, managers and investigators all have to be seperate, that's a lot of people.
19:08 <@plasmaroo> I wouldn't mind helping out with investigation.
19:08 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: you're ombudsman, it's a no go
19:08 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: I do investigation already :p
19:08 <@plasmaroo> Oh well :)
19:08 <@dostrow> I think we need more people to make it work not in the sense of we have to few people to make it work now but in the sense of even if we spilt ourselves in half it's still the same combined 'clique' making the call
19:08 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: agreed. however, we need to be careful that we don't become too large and half our members inactive, that's my only concern
19:09 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: Yeah, that's always the biggest problem.
19:09 <@plasmaroo> Yep.
19:09 <@dmwaters> dostrow: unfortunately, people are going to cry cabal no matter how we do it
19:09 <@g2boojum> The judicial folks are rarely needed.  What about choosing them by lottery from the existing devs when needed?
19:09 <@dostrow> of course, but with a larger or rotational body it's less defensable
19:10 <@jhuebel> g2boojum: That's a good thought.
19:10 <@ka0ttic> g2boojum: that's an idea
19:10 <@cshields> g2boojum: there is no way to enforce their participation
19:10 <@plasmaroo> g2boojum: Works for me, perhaps choose devs that have been here for X months?
19:10 <@jhuebel> Jury of your peers and all that...
19:10 <@plasmaroo> cshields: So we pick different people until we get some.
19:10 <@kingtaco|laptop> I wonder how many will call into jury duty
19:10 <@cshields> plasmaroo: most people who are willing to help with such stuff are already here..
19:10 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: are you saying  that when they are needed, pick a set of people from the devs?
19:10 <@jhuebel> plasmaroo: I don't think the amount of time a dev has been with the project should apply in this case.
19:10 <@kingtaco|laptop> and I think thats a terrible idea
19:10 **** dostrow remembers calling for a jury pool a while ago and getting shot down
19:11 <@plasmaroo> cshields: I think it depends on how much work will be involved.
19:11 <@jhuebel> Hmmm...
19:11 <@cshields> dostrow: keep in mind that no matter what is decided here, next time action is taken there will be people who cry foul.
19:11 <@plasmaroo> If it's a lot of work, yeah, we're unlikely to get people.
19:11 <@iggy> I haven't seen this proposal, but is there a provision to enact things quickly if need be for security/damage control reasons?
19:11 <@dostrow> cshields: of course
19:11 <@plasmaroo> iggy: No, but that's a good point which we need to solve.
19:11 <@cshields> iggy: infra will do that themselves
19:12 <@kingtaco|laptop> we are too small a group not to have links to everyone
19:12 <@plasmaroo> cshields: And then we get the cabal thing for authorizing infra to act too soon?
19:12 <@dostrow> iggy: it was brought up as an ammendment to the proposal
19:12 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: ?
19:12 <@plasmaroo> dostrow: Ah, okay.
19:12 <@cshields> plasmaroo: nope..  infra has taken such actions before without devrel involvement..  -shrug-
19:12 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: if infra is willing to take the screaming, then it's up to them
19:12 <@cshields> plasmaroo: in the case where something should involve devrel it would
19:12 <@plasmaroo> cshields: That's fine then.
19:12 <@jhuebel> plasmaroo: Well, we have to balance acting to protect Gentoo resources with not throwing out a dev entirely without due process.
19:12 <@plasmaroo> jhuebel: Of course.
19:13 <@jhuebel> I think temporarily suspending a devs access when there is suspicious activity is perfectly acceptable.
19:13 <@dostrow> cshields: I recognize that there will always be cries of foul play, I just want to make them look rediculous
19:13 <@dmwaters> dostrow: that's hard to do sometimes no matter how we do it
19:13 <@jhuebel> If we turn into the Vogons, needing triplicate forms for any action taken, things will break before we act.
19:14 <@plasmaroo> Heh.
19:14 <@dostrow> and I meant the cries of foul play not the people
19:14 <@cshields> dostrow: it's all a matter of opinion.   :)   a lot of them looked pretty rhidiculous to me this past time around  (not saying that I don't see room for improvement here)
19:14 <@plasmaroo> jhuebel: That's effectively what iggy effectively asked about.
19:14 <@dmwaters> my question still didn't get answered, though. is grant saying pick a set of devs from the entire community to act as judge when needed?
19:14 <@cshields> plasmaroo: that was an effective statement  ;)
19:14 <@dostrow> I never desire to make people look rediculous, unless I'm playing clown dress up
19:14 <@plasmaroo> cshields: Whoops ;)
19:14 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: yes
19:15 <@jhuebel> It sounds good in theory, but I think most devs won't want to participate.
19:15 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: it's their own fault if they don't and a decision is made they didn't like.
19:15 <@cshields> you may end up having a hard time finding a fair and balanced "jury" that way, too
19:15 <@jhuebel> And we'll end up with the small group who /are/ willing to take the crap.
19:15 <@dmwaters> cshields: agreed.
19:15 <@cshields> and to make it fair and balanced, jury selection would need to happen
19:16 <@cshields> and by that time I'll give it all up and find something else to do  :|
19:16 <@dmwaters> to me, it's a nice idea in theory, but it seems  like too much red take
19:16 <@dmwaters> tape
19:16 <@jhuebel> Not red tape so much as logistically difficult.
19:16 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: nod
19:16 <@dostrow> agreed, it's a tough call, that's one of the reason I feel a "jury pool" for a case by case basis is a bad idea
19:17 <@dmwaters> what about about having people that we rotate out  on a yearly basis?
19:17 **** slarti likes that idea
19:17 <@plasmaroo> People go on holiday?
19:17 <@dostrow> however if the jury is convened at say the beginning of a month regardless of if there is an incident or not.......
19:17 <@dmwaters> people that we pick from either devrel or the devs in general?
19:17 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: It would have to be devs in general.
19:17 <@cshields> again, you have a problem of finding people who are willing versus forcing people to "serve"..  It would be silly to cut someone off the team because they dodged their jury duty
19:17 <@dostrow> a year is a long shot, cut it down to a quarter and I'd be happier
19:17 <@jhuebel> It couldn't be devrel people.
19:18 <@g2boojum> dmwaters: Sorry, boss irq.  Yes, that's what I was saying.
19:18 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: it could
19:18 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: long as they're not a manager or an investigator
19:18 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: That's true.
19:18 <@dostrow> or obudman
19:18 <@dmwaters> dostrow: yes
19:18 <@dostrow> *ombudsman
19:18 <@plasmaroo> Yep.
19:18 <@dostrow> *ombudsmen
19:18 <@dmwaters> i think 6 months would be better
19:18 <@dostrow> damnit
19:18 <@dmwaters> quarter is a bit short
19:19 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: Right, to much shuffling around.
19:19 <@jhuebel> *too
19:19 <@plasmaroo> Hrm, 6 months would work.
19:19 <@dmwaters> cshields: we'd not force them to serve. there's people who'd be happy to be involved, it's just a matter of finding them
19:19 <@jhuebel> Assuming we only have one or two significant incidents in a year, a 6 month term would be easy.
19:19 <@dostrow> something this broad sweeping should be put to a general vote though, enacting this kind of policy can;t be done in a meeting like this
19:19 <@cshields> dmwaters: right.  my point is that for the most part, such people are already here in devrel
19:20 <@dmwaters> cshields: hm, nods
19:20 <@g2boojum> cshields: I personally think you'd be surprised.  Yes, people would decline, but I suspect you'd have better than 50% success rate, and that means only two iterations.
19:20 <@cshields> dmwaters: how easy has it been to find help in recruiting, for instance?
19:20 <@jhuebel> dostrow: This is a TLP change, so managers would need to be involved.
19:20 <@jhuebel> Like a GLEP. :-)
19:20 <@dostrow> g2boojum: agreed
19:20 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: this isn't a tlp change...
19:20 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: this happens inside of devrel
19:20 <@g2boojum> cshields: Part of the difference is that it would be _temporary_.  Recruiting is a long-term process.
19:20 <@cshields> true..
19:21 <@cshields> I'm not against the concept, I'm against the hours upon hours that will be wasted implementing it
19:21 <@dostrow> it would be temporary and as has been shown in the past the incidents are rare
19:21 <@cshields> I guess "wasted" is rather harsh
19:21 **** jhuebel nods.
19:21 <@dostrow> if recruiting meat you had to do one dev in 6 months things would be different
19:21 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: here's the thing though, i've asked people to be part of devrel though and most don't want to touch it, so corey does have a point
19:21 <@cshields> but I see this as trying to solve a problem, and in doing so other people are not going to like the outcome of this solution, making it a problem in itself
19:22 <@dmwaters> ok
19:22 <@dmwaters> let's forget this for a moment
19:22 <@dmwaters> how about this
19:22 <@dmwaters> we could always rotate investigators and judges on a 6 month basis inside of devrel
19:22 <@dmwaters> that would be much easier to handle
19:22 <@jhuebel> True.
19:22 <@plasmaroo> That'll work.
19:22 <@dmwaters> devrel currently has about 20 people
19:23 <@jhuebel> How many of each?
19:23 <@dmwaters> i've got 4 others who are interested
19:23 <@dostrow> I also think we have to look at this from a "Baby Steps" perspective, one thing at a time
19:23 <@dmwaters> who i've not proposed yet because of the recent flame war
19:23 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: 5 judges 10 investigators
19:23 <@jhuebel> Ah, that's right.
19:23 <@jhuebel> Do we really need 10 investigators?
19:23 <@dmwaters> dostrow: hm?
19:23 <@jhuebel> Seems like overkill.
19:23 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: the more the better
19:23 <@dostrow> I even think 10 investigators is too much
19:24 <@plasmaroo> Yah.
19:24 <@slarti> five sounds fair.
19:24 <@dmwaters> why?
19:24 <@jhuebel> I'd say 5 judges, 3 investigators.
19:24 <@dostrow> how many incidents are there
19:24 <@slarti> jhuebel: or that
19:24 <@dostrow> jhuebel: agreed
19:24 <@slarti> dostrow: right.
19:24 <@dmwaters> dostrow: enough
19:24 <@slarti> dmwaters: good answer. :)
19:24 <@dmwaters> ok
19:24 <@dmwaters> look at it this way
19:24 <@dmwaters> 10 allows for some flexibility
19:25 <@jhuebel> Well, when I say 3 investigators, I mean 3 working on any given incident.
19:25 <@jhuebel> Not that we only have 3 on tap.
19:25 <@dmwaters> say if i go to see my mother and something happens, thatleaves 2 people to deal with it
19:25 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: look at the bigger picture for the moment:)
19:25 **** jhuebel listens :-P
19:26 <@dmwaters> i'm saying 10 because it allows for people  to go on vacation or what ever. i didn't say they all had to be involved at once
19:26 <@dostrow> a pool of 10 of which at least 3 need to be involved in any active investigation?
19:26 <@dmwaters> nods
19:26 <@jhuebel> That's sounds good.
19:27 <@dostrow> sounds good to me
19:27 <@jhuebel> Investigators can be anyone in devrel. But I think we need to decide through some sort of informal vote who will be a judge.
19:27 <@dmwaters> personally, i think we need to rotate judges and investigators for the burnout factor
19:27 <@jhuebel> I'd say just judges.
19:28 <@dostrow> jhuebel: any non-manager/ombudsmen/judiciary
19:28 <@dostrow> I say we need to rotate them for bias factor as well
19:28 <@spyderous> if we're making the comparison to a jury, the jury merely decides guilt or innocence, not duration of punishment
19:29 <@dmwaters> at the current time with how devrel stands, i think managers should be allowed to investigate
19:29 <@dostrow> spyderous: this is more of a summary judgement arangement
19:29 <@dostrow> no jury just a panel of judges
19:29 **** jhuebel nods.
19:29 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: Why?
19:29 <@spyderous> a panel of inexperienced judges?
19:30 <@jhuebel> spyderous: A panel of the devs peers.
19:30 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: because when you take into account judges and ombudsman you're a bit limited on the rest of the group currently.
19:30 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: Hrm, how many people here are managers?
19:30 <@spyderous> jhuebel: and then you get complaints of unfair punishments tnat are unequal to those given by the last "jury" and the one before, etc
19:30 <@dostrow> spyderous: a panel of judges with strict guidelines to follow vis a vis punitive duration and type
19:30 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: But managers are also involved with the judicial side of things, when there is an appeal.
19:30 <@plasmaroo> jhuebel: Exactly, so we can't have them on the investigative side.
19:30 <@jhuebel> spyderous: See dostrow's comment. :-)
19:31 <@dmwaters> ok, someone go find me 5 new devrel people who aren't managers who want to  be involved and who are willing to put up with the stuff and who'd  make a good member:)
19:31 <@spyderous> it's my opinion that the peer panel should just decide guilt, and float it back to devrel leads for actual consequences.
19:31 <@spyderous> but i've got to go now.
19:31 <@dmwaters> spyderous: hrm, agreed
19:31 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: That's certainly a hurdle, but for the sake of seperation, it has to happen.
19:32 <@jhuebel> Otherwise, urilith's suggestion doesn't work.
19:32 <@dostrow> won't fly unless those same strict guidelines are in place
19:32 <@spyderous> so i'm with ya on whatever decision is made, because it's not that crucial to me.
19:32 <@spyderous> adios
19:32 <@dostrow> later donnie
19:32 <@jhuebel> spyderous: l8r :-)
19:32 <@dmwaters> out of the 4 people i've got who want/are interested in devrel, 2 of them are managers
19:33 <@jhuebel> Well, we don't have to have 5 managers for the appeal.
19:33 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: Beu says he can help.
19:33 <@dmwaters> i'm guessing that  6 or 8 out of current devrel are also managers
19:33 <@jhuebel> It could be 3.
19:33 <@dostrow> even if the punitive portion is floated back to devrel we need a strict punitive code to assign punnishment
19:33 <@jhuebel> dostrow: agreed
19:33 <@slarti> we can always set up a smaller judiciary/whatever and get it up to full strength later
19:33 <@dmwaters> dostrow: can you put that in something i'll understand, please?
19:34 <@dmwaters> slarti: heh, if anything gets made smaller it'll be investigation
19:34 <@jhuebel> We /could/ have fewer managers deal with an appeal.
19:34 <@jhuebel> Say, 3.
19:34 <@dostrow> dmwaters: when someone gets charged for murder1 in the courts it is know that if they are found guilty it is a minimum of 25 year sentence
19:34 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: also agreed.
19:34 <@dostrow> that is a strict code
19:34 <@slarti> dostrow: yeah, someone said earlier
19:34 <@dmwaters> dostrow: most of that is already in place now
19:34 <@dostrow> thus someone else when found guilty of the same crime cannot get a lesser sentence
19:35 <@jhuebel> dostrow: Do we have plea bargains? ;-)
19:35 <@slarti> so, has anyone talked to fmccor?
19:35 <@dostrow> is it clearly VISABLY documented?
19:35 <@dmwaters> dostrow: as i recall the policy is something like a min of 60 day suspention
19:35 <@slarti> he'd be kinda cool on the devrel wagon.
19:35 <@dmwaters> dostrow: check the devrel policies
19:35 <@dmwaters> slarti: maybe...
19:36 <@dostrow> dmwaters: and that is for all infractions?
19:36 <@dmwaters> slarti: if people want to be involved though, they should either email me or jason or devrel.
19:36 <@dmwaters> dostrow: it takes a great deal for someone to get suspended to start with.
19:36 <@slarti> dmwaters: hmm, sometimes I think it's nice to proactively go after people, but whatever.
19:36 <@dmwaters> slarti: and we've gone after people before:)
19:37 <@slarti> okay :)
19:37 <@jhuebel> A former amd64 lead, for instance. ;-)
19:37 <@plasmaroo> Heh.
19:37 <@dostrow> dmwaters: ok, that is for suspension as a punitive reaction, there are going to be cases (especially in the case of technical infractions as opposed to social ones) that don't warrant suspension but do warrant action of some type
19:37 <@dmwaters> dostrow: for example, we wouldn't suspend you for something like telling jason to fuck off, but if you're constantly going after people like ciaranm did, it's a bit different
19:38 <@jhuebel> dostrow: Those should be referred back to the dev's mentor, I would think.
19:38 <@dmwaters> dostrow: those go back to project leads
19:38 <@dostrow> I think that's too subjective
19:38 <@dmwaters> dostrow: we were asked to stay out of technical stuff
19:38 <@dmwaters> dostrow: and we have
19:38 <@spyderous> dostrow: btw, could you please start using paragraphs in your emails in the future, so they're actually readable? =P
19:38 <@slarti> I agree with dmwaters
19:39 <@jhuebel> me too
19:39 <@dmwaters> dostrow: we were asked to stay out of technical stuff because when we got involved we were told to stay out
19:39 <@dostrow> by whom? one of the problems we face is there are LOTS of devs without a management structue
19:39 <@dostrow> who do they get reffered back to?
19:39 <@dmwaters> dostrow: then the managers need to come up with a solution
19:39 <@jhuebel> dostrow: That's not a devrel issue, essentially.
19:40 <@jhuebel> That's a management issue.
19:40 <@dmwaters> dostrow: when people come on, they're involved in a project of some sort if that changes later, it's not devrel's issue
19:41 <@dmwaters> dostrow: if we get involved in technical problems, people are going to be quite upset
19:41 <@jhuebel> We only deal with social conflict, thus "relations". :-)
19:42 <@dmwaters> dostrow: if someone's repeatedly breaking the tree, i'm honestly not really sure what to suggest. so far, it's not been a major issue
19:42 <@jhuebel> Well, if it's malicious then that's our problem.
19:42 <@jhuebel> If it's out of ignorance, that's a manager problem.
19:42 <@dmwaters> dostrow: if someone does break the tree it usually ends up that most of the devs beat the daylights out of the one who does it:)
19:42 <@dostrow> in your eyes, it's happend many times all of them innocent mistakes but none the less
19:42 <@g2boojum> I know that avenj used to talk to people about breaking the tree all the time, so I believe that there is at least the belief that devrel is involved to some extent.
19:43 <@dostrow> agreed
19:43 <@cshields> I was unaware that we had changed that
19:43 <@dostrow> and in at least one case we let someone back in (I am distinctly not pointing fingers) who did it multiple times
19:43 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: nods, I've suggested a few things, but personally i've never gone after people for breaking the tree
19:43 <@dostrow> who does, the managers certainly don't
19:44 <@dostrow> someone has to
19:44 <@jhuebel> Meritocricy.
19:44 <@dostrow> and the dev community needs to know who to turn to with complaints
19:44 <@jhuebel> Your fellow devs police you.
19:44 <@dmwaters> maybe this part should be braught up at the next managers meeting then
19:44 **** jhuebel nods.
19:44 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: ?
19:44 <@g2boojum> jhuebel: Yes, but a manager can't discipline a dev, since there's no infrastructure for that to happen outside of devrel.
19:44 <@dostrow> ok, I'll table it for now, but it needs to be crystal clear where we stand
19:45 <@dmwaters> dostrow: agreed
19:45 <@dostrow> g2boojum: that is excatly what I am saying
19:45 <@g2boojum> dmwaters: I suggest an e-mail on -core right now, since I've no idea what next meeting will be like, depending on the current vote.
19:45 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: what if the managers decide, and it comes back  to us to handle from there?
19:45 <@cshields> (OT) when is the current vote over, anyway?
19:46 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: would it be worth holding till the vote is  over?
19:46 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: Then devrel has a mandate to do it.
19:46 <@g2boojum> cshields: Next Monday at 23:59 UTC.
19:46 <@g2boojum> dmwaters: Yes.
19:46 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: i'm just thinking that managers should deal with the technical side, and if they agree something needs to be done then they send it back to us
19:47 <@cshields> ideally everyone would answer to a manager, and said manager would be involved on social issues as well
19:47 <@cshields> else we have another problem like what happened with pappy
19:47 <@jhuebel> cshields: Agreed.
19:48 <@jhuebel> So, the devrel lead should be a liason for other managers to go to.
19:48 <@jhuebel> But the managers would have to agree to that, of course.
19:48 <@jhuebel> Informally, that's how it is now, in my mind.
19:48 <@cshields> the managers should be the "first line of defense" per se
19:49 <@dostrow> the key there is *in your mind* the fact that none of this is on paper is part of the problem
19:49 <@jhuebel> Each project isn't its own little island.
19:49 <@cshields> if someone is being a jerk to people, and it is brought to devrel's attention, devrel talks to the manager
19:49 <@cshields> and the manager talks to the dev
19:49 <@jhuebel> dostrow: I'm not arguing that.
19:49 <@jhuebel> But at some point, you have to make judgement calls to get things done.
19:49 <@dmwaters> some of this is already in policy
19:49 <@jhuebel> That's why they are called managers.
19:50 <@cshields> but, currently not all devs answer to a manager  so this may have to wait for the whole reform deal
19:50 <@g2boojum> cshields: It's also worth noting that if I get my way, a _lot_ of people aren't going to have managers.
19:50 <@dostrow> and I hate bureaucratic crap as much as the next guy, but it's the only way not to look like a guy with his willy hanging out of his pants every time something happens
19:50 <@jhuebel> heh
19:50 <@dmwaters> the thing to remember though is that we can have clear policy on most things but there needs to be room for flexibility
19:50 <@dmwaters> heh
19:50 <@cshields>g2boojum: true.  renegade developers!!! w00t!   ;)
19:50 <@dmwaters> but anyway:)
19:50 <@jhuebel> dmwaters: Agreed. You can't spell EVERYTHING out. It's not possible.
19:51 <@jhuebel> g2boojum: yuck, no managers for most devs?
19:51 **** dmwaters whimpers
19:51 <@dmwaters> :)
19:51 <@dmwaters> ok guys
19:51 <@jhuebel> There has to be someone a dev answers to.
19:51 <@jhuebel> But I digress.
19:51 <@dostrow> g2boojum's proposal has effectively no "managers" at all
19:51 <@dmwaters> let's slide back to the origional topic.
19:51 <@dmwaters> please:)
19:51 <@jhuebel> :-)
19:51 <@dostrow> indeed
19:52 <@dostrow> sorry for that
19:52 <@dmwaters> most of this managers stuff needs to wait till after the new vote
19:52 <@jhuebel> I've got 8 minutes until I have to be at another meeting. RL work beckons.
19:52 <@dmwaters> so
19:52 <@dmwaters> back to this proposal
19:52 <@dostrow> jhuebel: tell em to wait ;)
19:52 <@dmwaters> dostrow: ++
19:52 <@jhuebel> dostrow: And when my paycheck bounces? :-P
19:52 <@dmwaters> so for now
19:53 <@dmwaters> we go with 6 investigators, 5 judges?
19:53 <@jhuebel> Sure.
19:53 <@slarti> agree
19:53 <@plasmaroo> Sure, a 7th investigator would help.
19:53 <@jhuebel> All 5 judges should be available.
19:53 <@dostrow> I'm good for that
19:53 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: we have a people problem right now:p
19:53 <@dmwaters> jhuebel: agreed
19:53 <@dmwaters> ok
19:53 <@dmwaters> now
19:54 <@dmwaters> g2boojum: cshields: thoughts?
19:54 <@plasmaroo> dmwaters: Nod nod.
19:54 <@dostrow> and none of the 11 can be managers or ombudsmen
19:54 **** jhuebel nods.
19:54 <@slarti> dostrow: I think that needs revisiting, but okay
19:54 <@dmwaters> dostrow: agreed. we might have to shorten the investigative number to accomidate that, but i will need to look into it
19:55 <@cshields> dmwaters: sure..  I still have doubts and concerns but I have no better solution to offer right now  :)
19:55 <@jhuebel> We don't have to have 3 investigators on a particular case.
19:55 <@dostrow> note that when I say manager I mean TLP manager (as in those that one can appeal to) not project lead
19:55 <@dmwaters> cshields: we can refine the process as we go
19:55 <@slarti> dostrow: I'm just worried if we have a metastructure brought in (read: one of grant's) that requires managers to be elected.
19:55 <@g2boojum> dmwaters: I've been in and out, so I've missed some of the specifics.  I'll have to wait for the official write up to make comments, I'm afraid.
19:56 <@dostrow> slarti: this whole thing may have to be redone following the restructure
19:56 <@dmwaters> people's concerns is that things aren't documented. i think that as long as the process is clear, we should be ok
19:56 <@g2boojum> I see nothing particularly worrisome at the moment, however.
19:56 <@plasmaroo> Agreed.
19:56 <@dmwaters> thank you grant:)
19:56 <@dmwaters> dostrow: we may not be able to rotate people in and out of judges right away, are you ok with this?
19:56 <@dostrow> dmwaters: not only clear but *documented* so that any dev can look up how it is done
19:56 <@slarti> dostrow: I feared as much. Maybe we just have to force the devrel members who are managers also to abstain for votes, or just forget about the whole thing.
19:56 <@dostrow> dmwaters: for now
19:57 <@dmwaters> dostrow: nods, that's what i meant
19:57 <@slarti> s/for/from/
19:57 <@dmwaters> dostrow: am i missing anything else you've mentioned?
19:57 <@jhuebel> I gotta run. I'll read back through the log from here. <-- MARK
19:57 <@dostrow> slarti: yeah, we can't play the "anticipate the outcome of the vote" game, we have to go with what we know for now
19:57 <@dmwaters> later jason
19:58 **** dostrow decides to mess up jason's mark <-- MARK
19:58 <@cshields> lmao
19:58 <@cshields> ...jerk...  heh
19:58 <@dostrow> dmwaters: so long as we can revisit the technical stuff no
19:59 <@dmwaters> last call before i open up the channel... are there any more concerns that aren't addressed or i've forgotten for this proposal?
19:59 <@dmwaters> dostrow: after the managers stuff, i promise:)
19:59 <@dmwaters> cshields:
20:00 <@cshields> no
20:00 <@dmwaters> alright
20:00 :::: mode/#gentoo-devrel: -m by dmwaters
20:00 <@dmwaters> questions from anyone else?:)
20:01 <@seemant> yeah, anyone got any salami?
20:01 <@cshields> about time you showed up
20:01 <@cshields> slacker
20:01 <@cshields> ;)
20:01 <@dmwaters> seemant: !!
20:01 <@seemant> I've been here, just not at keyboard really
20:01 <@slarti> hi seemant.
20:01 <@dmwaters> seemant+++
20:02 <@seemant> hi all
20:02 <@ka0ttic> heya seemant
20:02 **** beu waves
20:02 <@dmwaters> last call for questions:)
20:02 **** slarti waves beu
20:02 <@dmwaters> questions, comments
20:02 < beu> tsk, waving me around like that ..
20:03 <@slarti> okay, maybe I missed it before, but what's the procedure for selecting the judiciary?
20:03 < beu> *mean* ;)
20:03 <@dostrow> I think we have to send the log out and make sure we get comments from the whole community before we enact this
20:03 <@dmwaters> slarti: they'll be selected from devrel members
20:03 < tove> what's the difference if the clique is split in two parts - one half investigates the other decides - to the whole clique does all?
20:03 <@dmwaters> dostrow: we will
20:03 <@dostrow> transparency++
20:04 < tove> i prefer the random selection method
20:04 <@dostrow> tove: a question I posed to which the only answer I got was "Go try and get people to do it, you'll see"
20:04 <@dmwaters> tove: there will be a specific group responsible for it, as well as transparency. as things stand the entire devrel project is responsible for it and a lot of things aren't documented
20:05 <@dmwaters> tove: this proposal will fix most of this
20:06 <@dmwaters> anyone else?
20:06 < amne> dmwaters: yupp, not really concerning your just finished meeting, but something a bit else
20:06 <@dmwaters> amne: after meeting:)
20:06 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: tag and send!
20:06 <@plasmaroo> Okei!
20:06 <@dostrow> tove: the other thing is we have made it clear that we are willing to accept others into the investigatory/judiciary pool, and once we have enough the pools will rotate
20:07 <@dmwaters> thanks guys
20:07 <@dostrow> we just don't have enough
20:07 **** plasmaroo waits for you lot to finish.
20:07 <@dostrow> and volunteering has to be the way it is done
20:07 <@dostrow> *soory*
20:07 <@dostrow> finnished
20:07 <@dmwaters> thanks dostrow :)
20:07 < amne> dmwaters: oh, thought it's already over ;-) ping me once you're really finished
20:07 <@dmwaters> amne: what's up:)
20:07 <@dmwaters> plasmaroo: go for it:)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 544 bytes --]