From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QsayM-0005XD-KI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:43:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7391321C110; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637EF21C0DF for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so4015934wyg.40 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:43:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SVAA+gpXF89edY0fSvm9X4wk+B7minQNjZwRtT5G3Cw=; b=vWjeBa5V7gidI9zpsootvx9NieHxM22gLodqfQVwU87bc2RT61gwQ9EVA7yvQh3+1H SrJgbtNuzV2XFGubwdBdc3CPFDN7cWcByHCyspm81dReqJNiXlPXcEkvpWU6W721X1Tx 4TbdcZiPLRAUrANv9RWCIQX0QlwF00GzadvzM= Received: by 10.227.10.73 with SMTP id o9mr2593659wbo.6.1313329382588; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.88.185.147] (wh147a.halls.manchester.ac.uk [130.88.185.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eq21sm3529718wbb.18.2011.08.14.06.43.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Markos Chandras Message-ID: <4E47D0C2.1020007@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:42:26 +0100 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110721 Thunderbird/5.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Should DevRel members be in Council? References: <4E47ADA0.2060906@gentoo.org> <4E47BD6E.3080500@gentoo.org> <4E47BF0C.9090703@gentoo.org> <4E47CA3D.3070700@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4E47CA3D.3070700@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 209ad14e7a1a37ea3c5e18fb14cb631f -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 08/14/2011 02:14 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Markos Chandras schrieb: >> On 08/14/2011 01:19 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> Markos Chandras schrieb: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is the second item I would like to discuss for the next >>>> Council agenda ( or a later one ) >>>> >>>> Quite a few of you know that Council acts as a court in case a >>>> developer has unresolved disputes with Devrel or when he is >>>> not happy with a Devrel's decision. The problem is that having >>>> the same people in the Council and in Devrel makes no sense >>>> since the same people will vote twice on that matter. A >>>> developer who wants to appeal to Council, seeks a review of his >>>> case and a fresh voting from new people. However, having devrel >>>> members, which are already biased based on the previous >>>> decision, makes the "Council's court role" a moot role :) >> >>> I have to ask the same here as for the other proposal: >> >>> Why do you restrict your proposal to a specific project? The >>> issue you are pointing at is the same for any other project, >>> where someone does open an appeal to council to vote on a team >>> decision he does not want to accept. >> >> I don't follow. I thought disputes were handled this way >> >> 1) Contact the guy and resolve the issue with him without bothering >> the rest of team members 2) Ask team lead 3) Ask devrel 4) Ask >> Council >> >> There is no way to go from 2->4 without devrel's involvement. > > So lets try with an example: > > A dev wants to join the Sunrise project and i as the lead say no to > him. > > This means, both 1 and 2 are already done, 3 does not seem reasonable > to me, since it looks unlikely to me, that DevRel could/should force > a team to accept a new member, which would end with the last point. > And if both sides keep their point, council could either force his > addition, which will usually mean, that the team lead leaves or > accept the decision of the team lead. > > I don't think Council is eligible to force this. The council is not supposed to interfere with how teams operate. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOR9DCAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC2dwQAJkEpCiOzd1TfwoeT1bGMs8j AHgBrR/pnn5UmvcshPI0AiCj/7wBwSpNWcTCjP2Zrw+RFI6diClIevCKn2kOiqYM S84/ajIbeQa6VgEfxsnwLJ7nFIHIym71PMzyJWzDO36A6I+YsOA8HPmoBpQ2ChgU By8zTDMI2dxYaPGb59Ul3wsXbOpK1Pb1XAWxFvejLzKJQ0Zazm9JiyNjZfEutx/e 3W7gI6o7vVHI6a+/oCYnBFx8MmEk+mxjqK0VVhnGuYDJhYOj53T2C1Capxi22jY+ JGui99yzh1gpufFYl7gMuKa+3kOtGYYFl5CHA+NI3N0OtB2KeOVtukWOJJKPlyj7 S4ScuQdYrmMENRMkeGuib9XGYj1GKK12FriZle+WNXvADzcM0rle17Hu/8PWQzvt LLonJWYQDKQZOoj+WX8zXEEBIHumhHM+qQYpmHYYhzQl8Y6REYXIUKgHg0lw65iw XyMs2fUknlaSWZAalve3aSfv+uzO3+bYyMff1TvU04uIye59ha0SeI/GlDqDhufx CJ6WeJDTpTg9LQwds1RNKnnh63P5wRJ1WYEIAWGYOKYm2blStMVuSd9X6dybwp8G xC5R/wcAliV88NpphlpAOlsBErJbixE5MUNgRhMLYbyhFTHZgOXrdL3GsRiaTnHY V6b8hANLDEBlUvEIljH+ =QSxN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----