From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9F51381F3 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C921E0A01; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3AEDE09FB for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z10so3310213qcx.21 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:19:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=ltqspfP4/oohB9y+4vcmEJra6BIIukDhx19a4h+YrIg=; b=BGdDUMTNy7mi0Kcg6i+vZz+o9+gcu7L6MaLbxjHgl6dqvMF5jo3Kn0JSpQnD/NHMBG +BLObcyZD1z3f51wnimy3xj6pp5l7qYijWipGj79U2Mn6F7LKLSm0KIrXEBJ42NzeplT we/VyPcST01XEXX6qcyj9F/PpD/ej9SjPbGx7smS0HQBM1W4+IGO0qnz446l61m6UJXU giMDW5yTmnt/dRBBhBwuM/WcJzch8itkDBzXEOQ3mtuXJdbgOMqPHn3RqQbIRMNOZ239 /ucCVGh+f7GZspRiSKmTGtuxsr1c9smXsgoqqtdqC7sk3TciQt5xI5hWLqE8CDPk8PeO pTOQ== X-Received: by 10.229.76.2 with SMTP id a2mr1963223qck.7.1371680395844; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bc5sm36758260qeb.3.2013.06.19.15.19.53 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:19:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:19:52 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted Message-ID: <20130619221952.GA1549@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> <51C2180B.4020006@gentoo.org> <51C2257D.1060205@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51C2257D.1060205@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 80cb271d-dddc-4a77-8e95-00a3bb35ed17 X-Archives-Hash: 2f1f2498f053dd7249d7b0163702a0a8 --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:41:17PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > On 06/19/2013 10:43 PM, Petteri R=EF=BF=A4ty wrote: > > On 19.6.2013 23.18, hasufell wrote: > >> What is a possible solution? Let the council elect all members. > >> That way the power still comes from the dev community, although > >> they do not vote devrel directly. The council should vote > >> anonymously, so that no connection between council member and > >> elected devrel member can be drawn which could otherwise affect > >> the election of the council. This system should prevent people > >> from thinking two steps ahead when voting the council. > >>=20 > >=20 > > The council can already do that if they so choose. Granted if this=20 > > process was made explicit it could have some influence on the > > turnover. In practice so far oversight has not been a problem > > (though since for quite a few years I have been part of both bodies > > the two have been quite connected). > >=20 >=20 > If they choose... that means the current form of control over devrel > is only of a _reactive_ nature. That nature is also necessary, but > that is not how "control" is defined in the context I was explaining > in the first post. >=20 > What happens if power has been abused and damage is already done? The > council can just pick up the pieces then, revert decisions (if > possible) and try to deescalate. > Then people will ask... who is responsible? Why was there no explicit > election? > That might even lead to devrel losing respect. People will think they > just have that power because they came first. > It's not just about saying retroactively that someone wasn't fit for > devrel after he messed up, it's about saying who IS fit. Then people > know why that person got that kind of authority. who is "fit" is always going to be subjective. is it just someone who has been in gentoo for a while? is it someone who has had professional experience in conflict resolution e.g. a manager? You aren't going to be able to detect who might abuse power until after it is done, so I don't really see a way to guarantee that a scenario like that will never happen. > Also... we still don't have any rotation, except when devs resign from > that project. Rotation is another issue entirely. Do we want forced rotation? Do we want to force people to resign from devrel after x amount of time? > Another thing: what do we do if devrel blocks actions against it's own > members? Because that's what gentoo projects have partly evolved > into... a group of buddies. I don't have much of a problem with that > in general, as it can improve effectivenes from some standpoints, but > this is not about a regular project. The council can override anything devrel does, including forcing someone off of devrel if they think that person has gotten out of line, so I don't see a problem here. > I don't even claim that current devrel is not fit or that they just > form their group of buddies, but why should we not try to minimize > those possibilities? >=20 > If we want them to use the sledgehammer, it should be clear who gets > that sledgehammer and why. Make it explicit, rule out uncertainties. > Rotate that role, so people don't lose focus. That is done, the lead gets to use the sledgehammer under certain circumstances [1], and the lead is selected by the project members yearly under glep 39 just like any project. William [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHCLogACgkQblQW9DDEZTjZlACgqjIKUPR25xk8bDw2fJoJDGpW 65sAn0kEgJZ3o2nMQuBgODAnrQsYB0wz =uTHv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--