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 CCBF01381F3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36665E097C; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E4FAE095D for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:03:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id db10so5399512veb.12 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:03:34 -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=YG0lVaKgDpunQMwjn1AQghJIVYpAcBwqPZ4kZqCsHRs=; b=rYabKiGhvMejxet4o790d1NRXnKjcYt6lLt0O3xfZD4OMP2bh53MOEfpgovkkr8RsZ cmCkK1qq4Xb9K889bbyptL1tc6usxI6y/ZJ5qHOBtWnWnaNdfu3Tcx0RCVzr3NwgRaFK zKhKPxqCqubCWicBdd8T4eUWnY9HgCgKtgO0tphG0I48fGAEbK9HJrTzsVz/ajR5KLZB v419t+FAe4/x+wzXNT9lJcFBI9Z7VDwti7enwoeRxWATLwmr3FmsuwR6CkjgR72i+iVF rYLeB1lo1Qg6LZXzUwTTRjbKnjosX5ontPCTkibCTNvzC7ZSqiThInlnGfeeb/o91XUr eBMQ== X-Received: by 10.220.248.137 with SMTP id mg9mr3570562vcb.38.1371755014666; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:03:34 -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 ik2sm1856575vdb.9.2013.06.20.12.03.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:03:30 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] On the way Devrel is constituted Message-ID: <20130620190330.GA23427@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <51C21229.9070105@gentoo.org> <20130619205029.44e1a3a3@gentoo.org> <20130619231740.5578d316@gentoo.org> <51C2DD11.7050007@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="a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 01b00a00-ee67-4530-a5cc-e7a05960ab6b X-Archives-Hash: 481c03faa14639aa0c2cd4a3f811d6a9 --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =20 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 =66rom 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? William --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHDUgIACgkQblQW9DDEZThZ6QCeI0AO+/ehjd5/CXDPC9BZ81zI JAkAn2rUTtS9tOJ+AqI5ZAAyPTF0qVDA =MB7z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--