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 D14DD1381F3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FF00E0ABC; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4710E0AA8 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [146.83.2.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3559D33DB75 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:32:21 -0400 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted Message-ID: <20130620153221.0ca1653c@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20130620190330.GA23427@linux1> References: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> <20130619205029.44e1a3a3@gentoo.org> <20130619231740.5578d316@gentoo.org> <51C2DD11.7050007@gentoo.org> <20130620190330.GA23427@linux1> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.18; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f9ea1c06-df5e-42f7-9a75-75324b2590ac X-Archives-Hash: 322d9a8b67843e3c67642b920f73bb15 On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:30 -0500 William Hubbs 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