Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted

[Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:30 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:25:55AM -0400, Douglas Dunn wrote:
> > In my opinion the devrel project lead or perhaps have 3 leads but
> > should at least be confirmed by the council, if that can happen and
> > the lead and or leads can make sure that the other devrel members
> > are upholding the intent of the coc.  It doesn't take a law degree
> > to enforce the coc, maybe give individual devrel members the
> > authority to give temporary punishments, but i think anything
> > permanent should go to the council to at least confirm devrels
> > suggestion of a permanent punishment.
>  
> If the council has to approve a major action devrel takes against a
> developer, there is no point in that developer appealing to the
> council.
> 
> > But imo if the lead of devrel needs confirmed by the council, and
> > the council has the power to remove the lead, and the final appeal
> > goes to the council, i dont see much room for the possibility of
> > abuse by devrel.
> 
> I don't see why the council couldn't remove the devrel lead if they
> felt it necessary.
> 
> Here are some thoughts I have wrt this situation:
> 
> 1. The QA and Devrel projects are directly accountable to the council.
> This protects against abuse of power since the council can remove
> people from these projects if they determine that power is being
> abused.
> 
> 2. The leads of these projects should be selected by the projects like
> any other project, but confirmed by the council.
> 
> 3. Since the leads are confirmed by the council, I don't think it is
> necessary for them to go back to the council for approval for actions
> they take.
> 
> 4. Both of these projects require unique skill sets that most
> developers may not have, so I don't think electing members of these
> projects is a good idea.
> 
> 5. Any actions these projects take can be appealed to the council
> (This follows from point 1).
> 
> Thoughts?

+1