[gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi all,

This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the next
Council agenda (or a later one).

Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders for
QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure
that the team is active or either force some activity in case the
current leader slacks big time. Furthermore, right now there is the
potential problem for the leader to only allow new members that he likes
so they can vote for him on next elections. Membership and voting
actions should not be related in these teams. The leader will still have
control over the new members but Council will do the voting ( community
will provide feedback ofc )

My proposal is:

Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
self-nominated

QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
self-nominated

This is just a brainstorming so please let me know what you think.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=+fCu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Fabian Groffen]

On 14-08-2011 12:06:57 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> My proposal is:
> 
> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated
> 
> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated

Why not make this a 1-year term also?

> This is just a brainstorming so please let me know what you think.

I think this could be a good idea.  It is probably best when the time to
vote on both QA and DevRel leads is halfway the term of the council,
else it may as well make as much sense to have the dev-community vote on
them directly.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 12:19 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-08-2011 12:06:57 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> My proposal is:
>> 
>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they
>> can self-nominated
>> 
>> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can 
>> self-nominated
> 
> Why not make this a 1-year term also?
Because having a QA team slacking for a year before you take action is
too much :/. OTOH, maybe a 6-month term for DevRel makes more sense.

> 
>> This is just a brainstorming so please let me know what you think.
> 
> I think this could be a good idea.  It is probably best when the time
> to vote on both QA and DevRel leads is halfway the term of the
> council, else it may as well make as much sense to have the
> dev-community vote on them directly.
> 
> 
Fair point but given the turnout in the last Council elections I don't
think developers will care to vote for QA/DevRel leaders. This is better
if it is handled directly by their representatives ( Council )

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=SsAe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Fabian Groffen]

On 14-08-2011 12:22:54 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 12:19 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 14-08-2011 12:06:57 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> My proposal is:
> >> 
> >> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they
> >> can self-nominated
> >> 
> >> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can 
> >> self-nominated
> > 
> > Why not make this a 1-year term also?
> Because having a QA team slacking for a year before you take action is
> too much :/. OTOH, maybe a 6-month term for DevRel makes more sense.

Ok, but then I'd prefer to make Council a monitoring entity of these
two.  That is, if QA or DevRel team(-lead) is slacking (however you
would define that), Council has the right to appoint a new lead (any
time).  That way you give the regular 1 year term to someone who does
his/her job, but allow to intervene directly as needed (and not after 6
months).

> >> This is just a brainstorming so please let me know what you think.
> > 
> > I think this could be a good idea.  It is probably best when the time
> > to vote on both QA and DevRel leads is halfway the term of the
> > council, else it may as well make as much sense to have the
> > dev-community vote on them directly.
> > 
> Fair point but given the turnout in the last Council elections I don't
> think developers will care to vote for QA/DevRel leaders. This is better
> if it is handled directly by their representatives ( Council )

Right, agree here.  I also believe the low turnout can be interpreted as
little to no interest to deal with stuff like this, so probably best
when Council does all the "work".


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 12:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-08-2011 12:22:54 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/14/2011 12:19 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 14-08-2011 12:06:57 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> My proposal is:
>>>> 
>>>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or
>>>> they can self-nominated
>>>> 
>>>> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they
>>>> can self-nominated
>>> 
>>> Why not make this a 1-year term also?
>> Because having a QA team slacking for a year before you take action
>> is too much :/. OTOH, maybe a 6-month term for DevRel makes more
>> sense.
> 
> Ok, but then I'd prefer to make Council a monitoring entity of these 
> two.  That is, if QA or DevRel team(-lead) is slacking (however you 
> would define that), Council has the right to appoint a new lead (any 
> time).  That way you give the regular 1 year term to someone who
> does his/her job, but allow to intervene directly as needed (and not
> after 6 months).
> 
This requires dedicated resources, meaning having people monitor the
activity of these teams and report problems/progress. Even if we enforce
elections every 6 months, if leaders/teams were active, it is highly
likely to retain their positions so no harm can come out of that :).

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=XQ/R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 12:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> That way you give the regular 1 year term to someone who
>> does his/her job, but allow to intervene directly as needed (and not
>> after 6 months).
>>
> This requires dedicated resources, meaning having people monitor the
> activity of these teams and report problems/progress. Even if we enforce
> elections every 6 months, if leaders/teams were active, it is highly
> likely to retain their positions so no harm can come out of that :).

I think that a forced re-appointment every six months is going to
create a lot more work than just keeping an eye on things.

And I don't think that anybody is proposing a very heavy level of
monitoring here.  Monitoring just means making sure that people aren't
running around with torches and pitchforks calling for the Devrel
lead's head.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Fabian Groffen]

On 14-08-2011 07:52:25 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 08/14/2011 12:31 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> That way you give the regular 1 year term to someone who
> >> does his/her job, but allow to intervene directly as needed (and not
> >> after 6 months).
> >>
> > This requires dedicated resources, meaning having people monitor the
> > activity of these teams and report problems/progress. Even if we enforce
> > elections every 6 months, if leaders/teams were active, it is highly
> > likely to retain their positions so no harm can come out of that :).
> 
> I think that a forced re-appointment every six months is going to
> create a lot more work than just keeping an eye on things.
> 
> And I don't think that anybody is proposing a very heavy level of
> monitoring here.  Monitoring just means making sure that people aren't
> running around with torches and pitchforks calling for the Devrel
> lead's head.

Exactly.  The Council should be looking more at the community as a whole
as normal members anyway, so if there is a problem, it'll be noticed
quite easily without much extra -- if any -- investments.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders for
> QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure
> that the team is active or either force some activity in case the
> current leader slacks big time.

++

> Membership and voting
> actions should not be related in these teams. The leader will still have
> control over the new members but Council will do the voting ( community
> will provide feedback ofc )

Are you suggesting that the leader has to be chosen within the team,
or that the council has to vote on individual team members?  I'm not
sure I like either of these.  I'd rather keep it simple: the council
can pick any developer they want to be the leader whatsoever, and then
the leader can run the team how they see fit.

> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated
>
> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated

So, my thought is something more like:

1.  The council reaches out to DevRel and QA teams and solicits
recommendations from them for the next team leader.
2.  The council sends to -dev an email summarizing the recommendations
and other candidates being considered, soliciting feedback from the
dev community.
3.  The council agrees by majority vote on who they want to lead each
team - that can be anybody in #1 or #2.  Waiting periods for feedback
are at the council's discretion.
4.  If a year goes by and all is well, the council goes back to #1.
5.  If at any point things are not well, the council is welcome to go
back to #1 at any time.  Nobody is given a guaranteed time in
"office."

Basically the relationship I propose between the Council and these
team leads is that of a board and its officers.  Officers serve at the
pleasure of the board, and while usually transitions are done in an
orderly manner, they do not need to be.  In most democratic nations,
the prime minister can be asked to step down at any time through a
no-confidence vote - but of course this is a rare occurrence.

The Council would of course do well to consider carefully the teams
own recommendations for their leads.  Cleaning house is not a good way
to run a shop unless it is truly rife with problems...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 12:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the leader has to be chosen within the team, 
> or that the council has to vote on individual team members?  I'm not 
> sure I like either of these.  I'd rather keep it simple: the council 
> can pick any developer they want to be the leader whatsoever, and
> then the leader can run the team how they see fit.

This is what I mean. The leader chooses the members of the team ( to
ensure that sane or qualified people are part of the team ). However,
the leader is appointed by the council.

> 
>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they
>> can self-nominated
>> 
>> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can 
>> self-nominated
> 
> So, my thought is something more like:
> 
> 1.  The council reaches out to DevRel and QA teams and solicits 
> recommendations from them for the next team leader. 2.  The council
> sends to -dev an email summarizing the recommendations and other
> candidates being considered, soliciting feedback from the dev
> community. 3.  The council agrees by majority vote on who they want
> to lead each team - that can be anybody in #1 or #2.  Waiting periods
> for feedback are at the council's discretion. 4.  If a year goes by
> and all is well, the council goes back to #1. 5.  If at any point
> things are not well, the council is welcome to go back to #1 at any
> time.  Nobody is given a guaranteed time in "office."
> 
Yes fair points, and it seems to me that the bureaucracy overhead is
minimum.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=Qcrp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 14/08/2011 12:35 μμ, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed
>> leaders for QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the
>> Council can ensure that the team is active or either force some
>> activity in case the current leader slacks big time.
> 

Well, to be honest, I have no clear understanding of what you guys think
about this problem. From what I gathered, it seems to me that we need to
establish a process to identify dead/slacking projects and then have the
appropriate mechanism within the council to deal with it.

Having all the project sending a "ping" e-mail to council is not a
solution. Having a bunch of people monitoring all the projects is not
good either.

What I propose, is to compile a list with projects that are known to be
dead, and give them a final warning or verify their "dead" status. After
that, their broken package shall be removed, and the rest of them can
remain as maintainer-needed@. 2-3 developers can take care of the
removals. It is not a big deal.

Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
maintain thousands of ebuilds. I have already said that many many times
and I will say it again. We need to stop pretending that everything is
fine. We need to support only the packages that we can *really* support
and lets hope that more people will join in when they see their packages
going away.

I think this is quite honest not just to our selves but to our users as
well. If we keep stalling, then heavy committers will probably get
demotivated ( by trying to keep everything working ) and Gentoo will
slowly die or portage will become unmanageable.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=kXGN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
> developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
> maintain thousands of ebuilds. I have already said that many many times
> and I will say it again. We need to stop pretending that everything is
> fine. We need to support only the packages that we can *really* support
> and lets hope that more people will join in when they see their packages
> going away.

I think this depends on your definition of "support."  If a package is
stale but works fine, I'd prefer to just leave it alone.  Obviously a
package that is broken or has security bugs should be removed if
nobody steps up.

Think about the typical use case.  The typical user has probably 10-30
applications they REALLY care about, and if they were two years old
they'd be upset.

However, the typical user probably has 100-200 packages installed on
their system, usually as dependencies, or because they do trivial
things like display the time in the corner of the screen.  Users need
these packages and the functionality they bring, but nobody really
cares if they're running a 5-year-old version of agetty, slim, or
libX11 unless it has a security bug or simply doesn't work with the
software they care about.

So, I think it is in our interests to leverage the work that has been
done in the past.  If that version of slim stops working with the
latest xfce release, chances are somebody will fix it.  If agetty has
a security hole, somebody will fix it, and so on.  However, merely
ditching software simply because it is old reduces the usability of
Gentoo without really getting us anything.  Those packages cost
NOTHING to maintain, since nobody is maintaining them anyway.

If we simply drop lots of packages, I don't think users will volunteer
in droves to become devs and fix them.  More likely, they'll just go
elsewhere, and we'll actually end up with fewer devs.

I think the average level of quality in Gentoo is adequate.  There are
a few problem spots that crop up and should be dealt with.  However,
packages that are simply older than upstream aren't automatically a
problem.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 17/08/2011 07:16 ??, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250
>> listed developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active
>> ) to maintain thousands of ebuilds. I have already said that many
>> many times and I will say it again. We need to stop pretending that
>> everything is fine. We need to support only the packages that we
>> can *really* support and lets hope that more people will join in
>> when they see their packages going away.
> 
> I think this depends on your definition of "support."  If a package
> is stale but works fine, I'd prefer to just leave it alone.
> Obviously a package that is broken or has security bugs should be
> removed if nobody steps up.

I already said to keep around those which are abandoned but still work.


> I think the average level of quality in Gentoo is adequate.  There
> are a few problem spots that crop up and should be dealt with.
> However, packages that are simply older than upstream aren't
> automatically a problem.
No, I disagree. The QA level is extremely poor especially in
unmaintained teams. I am not talking about old versions. I am talking
about *unmaintained* packages that nobody is every gonna fix. The bugs
constantly pile up, users get frustrated etc etc


- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=Ejaf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the next
> Council agenda (or a later one).
> 
> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders for
> QA and DevRel.

My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and DevRel?

> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure
> that the team is active or either force some activity in case the
> current leader slacks big time.

If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to join the team and vote themselves
for the lead. So even if there is no activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if someone
is interested to do the work. If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be able
to create any activity either, since they cannot force anyone to do something.

> Furthermore, right now there is the
> potential problem for the leader to only allow new members that he likes
> so they can vote for him on next elections. Membership and voting
> actions should not be related in these teams.

How is this specific to those 2 projects? Other projects do work the same way, so if you argument
this way, you should extend your proposal to all projects, not just QA and DevRel.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the
>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>> 
>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed
>> leaders for QA and DevRel.
> 
> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and DevRel?

Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of Gentoo
project.

> 
>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that the
>> team is active or either force some activity in case the current
>> leader slacks big time.
> 
> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to join
> the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there is no
> activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if someone is
> interested to do the work.
Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves you.
Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.

If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be able
> to create any activity either, since they cannot force anyone to do
> something.
You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are some
bureaucracy^W procedures to follow.

> 
>> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the
>> leader to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote for
>> him on next elections. Membership and voting actions should not be
>> related in these teams.
> 
> How is this specific to those 2 projects? Other projects do work the
> same way, so if you argument this way, you should extend your
> proposal to all projects, not just QA and DevRel.
> 
Like I said, these are the crucial projects. This is because they manage
procedures affecting inter-project related issues etc.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=rrH0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3527 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the
>>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>
>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed
>>> leaders for QA and DevRel.
> 
>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and DevRel?
> 
> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of Gentoo
> project.

How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the other way round: QA and DevRel are
only important, if there is some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are always
important, since they have to maintain things continuously.
While the council could still decide, if DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some workload away),
you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain our infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.

> 
> 
>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that the
>>> team is active or either force some activity in case the current
>>> leader slacks big time.
> 
>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to join
>> the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there is no
>> activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if someone is
>> interested to do the work.
> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves you.
> Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.

Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The QA team is not empty/inactive,
neither is DevRel team empty/inactive, so this does not apply to the current situation.

>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be able
>> to create any activity either, since they cannot force anyone to do
>> something.
> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are some
> bureaucracy procedures to follow.

You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just some procedures to follow, this just
means some initial activity/workload to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who could prevent you
from joining it and then becoming the lead?

>>> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the
>>> leader to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote for
>>> him on next elections. Membership and voting actions should not be
>>> related in these teams.
> 
>> How is this specific to those 2 projects? Other projects do work the
>> same way, so if you argument this way, you should extend your
>> proposal to all projects, not just QA and DevRel.
> 
> Like I said, these are the crucial projects. This is because they manage
> procedures affecting inter-project related issues etc.

I have to disagree about the importance of those 2 projects. The most important work done by those
teams is fixing minor issues, being either technical issues or inter-personal issues. While those
teams can make a decision, this is never final, you always have the option to go to the council,
which is elected by the dev community and has the final decision. So i would see those projects more
like some delegation of work to people interested in doing the work in that area, while the council
still has the last word.

And, as a side note: Only a very small minority of devs is even willing and able to do the work of
those projects, so a regular council voting would effectively change nothing beside adding some more
bureaucracy.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the 
>>>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>> 
>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed 
>>>> leaders for QA and DevRel.
>> 
>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and
>>> DevRel?
>> 
>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of
>> Gentoo project.
> 
> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the other
> way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if there is some issue
> not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are always important,
> since they have to maintain things continuously. While the council
> could still decide, if DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some
> workload away), you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain
> our infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.
> 
1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask and
remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is nothing we can
do about that.
2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with ebuild
maintenance and portage directly.
3) I am not sure what is the problem with docs. There are understaffed
since I remember but it is not crucial to project continuity since most
projects maintain docs on their spaces as well.

>> 
>> 
>>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that
>>>> the team is active or either force some activity in case the
>>>> current leader slacks big time.
>> 
>>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to
>>> join the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there
>>> is no activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if
>>> someone is interested to do the work.
>> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves
>> you. Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.
> 
> Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The QA
> team is not empty/inactive, neither is DevRel team empty/inactive, so
> this does not apply to the current situation.
Well, clearly we have a different definition for the word "active". If
you think that QA is active then there is no reason for me to try to
convince you for the opposite.

> 
>>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be
>>> able to create any activity either, since they cannot force
>>> anyone to do something.
>> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are
>> some bureaucracy procedures to follow.
> 
> You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just some
> procedures to follow, this just means some initial activity/workload
> to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who could prevent you from
> joining it and then becoming the lead?
Existing members, who claim to be active, may prevent you. Remember what
happened last time Patrick tried to resurrect GMW, and all of a sudden,
Joshua claimed that he can't do that because he wasn't the lead.
Unless I misunderstand your definition for "dead" word. You mean empty
project pages? Or just pages with 14 members and 0 commits/year?

> 
>>>> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the 
>>>> leader to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote
>>>> for him on next elections. Membership and voting actions should
>>>> not be related in these teams.
>> 
>>> How is this specific to those 2 projects? Other projects do work
>>> the same way, so if you argument this way, you should extend
>>> your proposal to all projects, not just QA and DevRel.
>> 
>> Like I said, these are the crucial projects. This is because they
>> manage procedures affecting inter-project related issues etc.
> 
> I have to disagree about the importance of those 2 projects. The most
> important work done by those teams is fixing minor issues, being
> either technical issues or inter-personal issues. While those teams
> can make a decision, this is never final, you always have the option
> to go to the council, which is elected by the dev community and has
> the final decision. So i would see those projects more like some
> delegation of work to people interested in doing the work in that
> area, while the council still has the last word.
If you have a dead QA team, then you suck as a project. If you have a
dead recruitment team then you such as a project. But if you have a e.g.
deal perl team, then you just can't support perl, which is bad, but not
as bad as not having QA/Devrel up and running.
> 
> And, as a side note: Only a very small minority of devs is even
> willing and able to do the work of those projects, so a regular
> council voting would effectively change nothing beside adding some
> more bureaucracy.
> 
Bringing council to the game, ensures that these projects will be active
and managed at a senior level. Right now, there is no recovery plan if
these teams do not function properly.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=EUFy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

On 2011.08.14 14:38, Markos Chandras wrote:

[snip]
> Bringing council to the game, ensures that these projects will be
> active
> and managed at a senior level. Right now, there is no recovery plan 
> if
> these teams do not function properly.

What's the recovery plan if other projects don't function properly?
e.g. Documentation. The install guides still describe setting up 
baselayout-1, three months after baselayout-2 was stabilised. See 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4&chap=1 
Code Listing 1.2: Examples for /etc/conf.d/net

Hmm. maybe thats a bug as 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=8 is 
correct for baselayout-2.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.

Will the council fix these things too ?
Josh, this is just one example I'm familiar with. not a poke at you 
being the entire docs team.

Why are devrel and QA special?

To continue with my example, I would suggest that docs are much more 
important as they are first point of contact for new users and without 
users Gentoo will die.

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 04:35 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.14 14:38, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> Bringing council to the game, ensures that these projects will be 
>> active and managed at a senior level. Right now, there is no
>> recovery plan if these teams do not function properly.
> 
> What's the recovery plan if other projects don't function properly? 
> e.g. Documentation. The install guides still describe setting up 
> baselayout-1, three months after baselayout-2 was stabilised. See 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=4&chap=1
>  Code Listing 1.2: Examples for /etc/conf.d/net
> 
> Hmm. maybe thats a bug as 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=8
> is correct for baselayout-2.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.
> 
> Will the council fix these things too ? Josh, this is just one
> example I'm familiar with. not a poke at you being the entire docs
> team.
> 
> Why are devrel and QA special?
> 
> To continue with my example, I would suggest that docs are much more
>  important as they are first point of contact for new users and
> without users Gentoo will die.
> 
Yes but like I said, many project keep their documentation in their
project pages. Like openrc does for baselayout-2 migration guide.
I don't disagree with you and yes maybe more team need to be
managed/monitor at a senior level. The thing is that something HAS to
change.

I like your idea about the authority team (though  this introduces
another layer of bureaucracy). It would be nice to have a team
monitoring all the projects and poking council to take action when
needed. But this team looks like similar to QA doesn't it? What if this
team is formed by Council members (2-3)? This team will gather feedback
from the community ( "Hey devs, which teams need urgent attention?" ),
design solutions and bring them to the Council agenda?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=ynAf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

Team,

On 2011.08.14 16:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 04:35 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2011.08.14 14:38, Markos Chandras wrote:

> > Why are devrel and QA special?

> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

I should have known better than to address several points in one post.
They don't all get addressed in the response :)

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2184 bytes --]

On 2011.08.14 16:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 04:35 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2011.08.14 14:38, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
[snip] 
> I like your idea about the authority team (though  this introduces
> another layer of bureaucracy). It would be nice to have a team
> monitoring all the projects and poking council to take action when
> needed. But this team looks like similar to QA doesn't it? What if
> this
> team is formed by Council members (2-3)? This team will gather
> feedback
> from the community ( "Hey devs, which teams need urgent attention?" 
> ),
> design solutions and bring them to the Council agenda?
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

I'm not suggesting a new team nor another layer of bureaucracy.
In fact nothing changes except the council clearly have the authority 
to act to fix issues in they way they see fit. I think that is 
already implied by GLEP39 and being the elected developer body.
That's something the council can clarify. 

Projects are required to hold elections for a lead every year. Projects 
that don't do that need to be poked to see if they are still alive.
That can be a part of the councils monitoring process.

Maybe it can even be automated by checking the last modified dates on 
project pages.  Any projects that have not touched their web pages for 
a year are worthy of further council attention.

Generalising your idea further than devrel and QA perhaps some projects 
need to be monitored more closely than others.
However, the data gathering is only useful if it leads to some useful 
action. I don't see what the council can do if other volunteers are not 
already doing it, except do it themselves or publicise the problem and 
ask others to step in.

Its all very well the council leading Gentoo to be first into the 
future but they also have a cleaning up role to ensure that Gentoo is 
not also last out of the past.

Of course, being council, any or all of this can be delegated as 
council see fit.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14-08-2011 15:43, Markos Chandras wrote:

<snip>

> I like your idea about the authority team (though  this introduces 
> another layer of bureaucracy). It would be nice to have a team 
> monitoring all the projects and poking council to take action when 
> needed. But this team looks like similar to QA doesn't it? What if
> this team is formed by Council members (2-3)? This team will gather
> feedback from the community ( "Hey devs, which teams need urgent
> attention?" ), design solutions and bring them to the Council
> agenda?

Actually we do have a meta-structure project[1], but that project needs
new blood. I just went ahead an joined the project as I've been meaning
to do that forever.

 [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=Lz7L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4537 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the 
>>>>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed 
>>>>> leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>
>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and
>>>> DevRel?
>>>
>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of
>>> Gentoo project.
> 
>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the other
>> way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if there is some issue
>> not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are always important,
>> since they have to maintain things continuously. While the council
>> could still decide, if DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some
>> workload away), you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain
>> our infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.
> 
> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask and
> remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is nothing we can
> do about that.

If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they dont even maintain ebuilds to mask
and remove. It may result in less QA fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any case,
where you need a decision, you could always call for the council. Those projects do just some
delegated work, which is of course nice, if it comes to the daily work and also, because it reduces
the work, that needs to be done by the council. But neither is unreplaceable and the decisions of
both teams can already be checked by the council, so i see no real requirement for additional
bureaucracy for those 2 specific teams.

Either you want to move more control to the council, then it should do the checks and votes for all
teams or you leave it like now, where the teams do decide themselves.

> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with ebuild
> maintenance and portage directly.

And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the hardware? :-)

>>>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that
>>>>> the team is active or either force some activity in case the
>>>>> current leader slacks big time.
>>>
>>>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to
>>>> join the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there
>>>> is no activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if
>>>> someone is interested to do the work.
>>> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves
>>> you. Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.
> 
>> Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The QA
>> team is not empty/inactive, neither is DevRel team empty/inactive, so
>> this does not apply to the current situation.
> Well, clearly we have a different definition for the word "active". If
> you think that QA is active then there is no reason for me to try to
> convince you for the opposite.

Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA (and DevRel)?

>>>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be
>>>> able to create any activity either, since they cannot force
>>>> anyone to do something.
>>> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are
>>> some bureaucracy procedures to follow.
> 
>> You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just some
>> procedures to follow, this just means some initial activity/workload
>> to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who could prevent you from
>> joining it and then becoming the lead?
> Existing members, who claim to be active, may prevent you. Remember what
> happened last time Patrick tried to resurrect GMW, and all of a sudden,
> Joshua claimed that he can't do that because he wasn't the lead.
> Unless I misunderstand your definition for "dead" word. You mean empty
> project pages? Or just pages with 14 members and 0 commits/year?

I would see a project as "dead", if there is no activity at all, also there is a need for activity
(like open bugs for an ebuild, which never get processed or no newsletter sent out at all).

I dont mind about asking the council to decide, who can take over a dead project, if more than one
person wants to take it and those people dont get to a consensus.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 05:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for
>>>>>> the next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council
>>>>>> appointed leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>> 
>>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and 
>>>>> DevRel?
>>>> 
>>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of 
>>>> Gentoo project.
>> 
>>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the
>>> other way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if there is
>>> some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are
>>> always important, since they have to maintain things
>>> continuously. While the council could still decide, if DevRel or
>>> QA are gone (they just take some workload away), you wont be able
>>> to get the council to e.g. maintain our infrastructure, ebuilds
>>> or docs.
>> 
>> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask and 
>> remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is nothing we
>> can do about that.
> 
> If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they dont
> even maintain ebuilds to mask and remove. It may result in less QA
> fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any case, where
> you need a decision, you could always call for the council. Those
> projects do just some delegated work, which is of course nice, if it
> comes to the daily work and also, because it reduces the work, that
> needs to be done by the council. But neither is unreplaceable and the
> decisions of both teams can already be checked by the council, so i
> see no real requirement for additional bureaucracy for those 2
> specific teams.

I am not talking ajust about decisions. If QA slacks then will then
Council step up and maintain the QA in the portage? If devrel slacks
then will the Council do all the recruitment/retirement? These projects
are vital for the project. I don't know how to explain that in more details.

> 
> Either you want to move more control to the council, then it should
> do the checks and votes for all teams or you leave it like now, where
> the teams do decide themselves.
> 
>> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with
>> ebuild maintenance and portage directly.
> 
> And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the
> hardware? :-)
Like I said, this is not related to portage QA. I only care about the
/usr/portage/* parts and what users see from "outside"

> 
>>>>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure
>>>>>> that the team is active or either force some activity in
>>>>>> case the current leader slacks big time.
>>>> 
>>>>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs
>>>>> to join the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if
>>>>> there is no activity, it should be no problem to get
>>>>> activity, if someone is interested to do the work.
>>>> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead
>>>> approves you. Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.
>> 
>>> Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The
>>> QA team is not empty/inactive, neither is DevRel team
>>> empty/inactive, so this does not apply to the current situation.
>> Well, clearly we have a different definition for the word "active".
>> If you think that QA is active then there is no reason for me to
>> try to convince you for the opposite.
> 
> Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA (and
> DevRel)?
Ok, and active QA team is a team that fixes severe and other QA problems
within 24 hours. Moreover, an active QA team should be there 24/7 for
someone who needs an advice for them or needs to complain about a
developer that broke portage. If QA was active the breakages from
Arfrever's commits would have been spotted months before a severe
incident occurs.

An active devrel, means fast procedures on conflict resolutions (
yngwin's case took 14 months and the decision was made after he was
retired ), continuous retirement process, etc
> 
>>>>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council
>>>>> wont be able to create any activity either, since they cannot
>>>>> force anyone to do something.
>>>> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There
>>>> are some bureaucracy procedures to follow.
>> 
>>> You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just
>>> some procedures to follow, this just means some initial
>>> activity/workload to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who
>>> could prevent you from joining it and then becoming the lead?
>> Existing members, who claim to be active, may prevent you. Remember
>> what happened last time Patrick tried to resurrect GMW, and all of
>> a sudden, Joshua claimed that he can't do that because he wasn't
>> the lead. Unless I misunderstand your definition for "dead" word.
>> You mean empty project pages? Or just pages with 14 members and 0
>> commits/year?
> 
> I would see a project as "dead", if there is no activity at all, also
> there is a need for activity (like open bugs for an ebuild, which
> never get processed or no newsletter sent out at all).
 This goes a bit OT, but if a project is dead the council MUST find a
solution to that problem. Creating activity is not the only solution.
Announcing the removal of dead projects along with their packages is a
more realistic solution. Recent example, the zope herd that nobody
notice they were dead until 2 days ago. Ugh...
GWM, zope, media-optical, etc etc[1] are dead long time ago.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/herds.xml

We need to come up with a solution for dead projects, but this is OT to
the current thread. If someone wants to discuss this further please
change the title and split the threads.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=D4Yx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4180 bytes --]

Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 08/14/2011 05:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for
>>>>>>> the next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council
>>>>>>> appointed leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and 
>>>>>> DevRel?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of 
>>>>> Gentoo project.
>>>
>>>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the
>>>> other way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if there is
>>>> some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are
>>>> always important, since they have to maintain things
>>>> continuously. While the council could still decide, if DevRel or
>>>> QA are gone (they just take some workload away), you wont be able
>>>> to get the council to e.g. maintain our infrastructure, ebuilds
>>>> or docs.
>>>
>>> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask and 
>>> remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is nothing we
>>> can do about that.
> 
>> If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they dont
>> even maintain ebuilds to mask and remove. It may result in less QA
>> fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any case, where
>> you need a decision, you could always call for the council. Those
>> projects do just some delegated work, which is of course nice, if it
>> comes to the daily work and also, because it reduces the work, that
>> needs to be done by the council. But neither is unreplaceable and the
>> decisions of both teams can already be checked by the council, so i
>> see no real requirement for additional bureaucracy for those 2
>> specific teams.
> 
> I am not talking ajust about decisions. If QA slacks then will then
> Council step up and maintain the QA in the portage? If devrel slacks
> then will the Council do all the recruitment/retirement? These projects
> are vital for the project. I don't know how to explain that in more details.

Every developer is responsible for the QA of the packages he maintains. There are of course some
mistakes happening and sometimes someone does something wrong (intentionally or not), but if there
is no active QA team, this just means, that the users will hit those issues and report them. While
this is not the best way, it still does not mean the end of Gentoo.
While DevRel currently only contains members of recruiters and undertakers, this does not have to
stay that way. Either some recruiter/undertaker could refuse to do additional DevRel work or other
developers not involved in recruitment/retirement could join the DevRel project.

So while recruiters are vital to Gentoo, imho this is not true for DevRel.

>>> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with
>>> ebuild maintenance and portage directly.
> 
>> And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the
>> hardware? :-)
> Like I said, this is not related to portage QA. I only care about the
> /usr/portage/* parts and what users see from "outside"

If the master rsync server refuses to run, this will have an impact at what users see from "outside" ;-)

[SNIP]
> 
>> Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA (and
>> DevRel)?
> Ok, and active QA team is a team that fixes severe and other QA problems
> within 24 hours. Moreover, an active QA team should be there 24/7 for
> someone who needs an advice for them or needs to complain about a
> developer that broke portage. If QA was active the breakages from
> Arfrever's commits would have been spotted months before a severe
> incident occurs.

If your requirement for active QA is that high, i have to tell you, that practially you will never
get the needed manpower together to meet those requirements.




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 05:48 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> On 08/14/2011 05:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss
>>>>>>>> for the next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council 
>>>>>>>> appointed leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA
>>>>>>> and DevRel?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity
>>>>>> of Gentoo project.
>>>> 
>>>>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it
>>>>> the other way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if
>>>>> there is some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other
>>>>> projects are always important, since they have to maintain
>>>>> things continuously. While the council could still decide, if
>>>>> DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some workload away),
>>>>> you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain our
>>>>> infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask
>>>> and remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is
>>>> nothing we can do about that.
>> 
>>> If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they
>>> dont even maintain ebuilds to mask and remove. It may result in
>>> less QA fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any
>>> case, where you need a decision, you could always call for the
>>> council. Those projects do just some delegated work, which is of
>>> course nice, if it comes to the daily work and also, because it
>>> reduces the work, that needs to be done by the council. But
>>> neither is unreplaceable and the decisions of both teams can
>>> already be checked by the council, so i see no real requirement
>>> for additional bureaucracy for those 2 specific teams.
>> 
>> I am not talking ajust about decisions. If QA slacks then will
>> then Council step up and maintain the QA in the portage? If devrel
>> slacks then will the Council do all the recruitment/retirement?
>> These projects are vital for the project. I don't know how to
>> explain that in more details.
> 
> Every developer is responsible for the QA of the packages he
> maintains. There are of course some mistakes happening and sometimes
> someone does something wrong (intentionally or not), but if there is
> no active QA team, this just means, that the users will hit those
> issues and report them.
Again, all the problems are not the same. There is a vertical
relationship in this case as well. Sometimes, you need an active QA to
fix a problem before it hits users (remember recent case with broken
python + portage )

> this is not the best way, it still does not mean the end of Gentoo.
Well, driving users away is not a good thing either. If you constantly
break things they will go away sooner or later. We have already lost a
great amount of our former user base and we keep loosing more and more.
The numbers of those who are leaving are certainly more than those who
are joining.

>>>> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with 
>>>> ebuild maintenance and portage directly.
>> 
>>> And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the 
>>> hardware? :-)
>> Like I said, this is not related to portage QA. I only care about
>> the /usr/portage/* parts and what users see from "outside"
> 
> If the master rsync server refuses to run, this will have an impact
> at what users see from "outside" ;-)
> 
Infra is in a good state so I don't really understand why do we need to
deal with this at the moment.

> [SNIP]
>> 
>>> Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA
>>> (and DevRel)?
>> Ok, and active QA team is a team that fixes severe and other QA
>> problems within 24 hours. Moreover, an active QA team should be
>> there 24/7 for someone who needs an advice for them or needs to
>> complain about a developer that broke portage. If QA was active the
>> breakages from Arfrever's commits would have been spotted months
>> before a severe incident occurs.
> 
> If your requirement for active QA is that high, i have to tell you,
> that practially you will never get the needed manpower together to
> meet those requirements.
> 
> 
I have high requirement ( which are non-realistic ) so even if we
achieve 50% of them would be good enough.


- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=v6xx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --]

On 2011.08.14 17:56, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]

> We have 
> already lost a great amount of our former user base and we keep 
> loosing more and more.


> The numbers of those who are leaving are certainly more than those 
> who are joining.

[snip]
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

That's an interesting pair of assertions. Do you have some numbers and 
sources to substantiate them?

From my view of the Gentoo world on the forums and in #gentoo, there is 
no drop off in numbers of new users. Even during May and June when the 
stage3 files were badly broken, new users persisted with Gentoo 
installs.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 07:03 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.14 17:56, Markos Chandras wrote: [snip]
> 
> 
> That's an interesting pair of assertions. Do you have some numbers
> and sources to substantiate them?
> 
> From my view of the Gentoo world on the forums and in #gentoo, there
> is no drop off in numbers of new users. Even during May and June when
> the stage3 files were badly broken, new users persisted with Gentoo 
> installs.
> 
Err no but you don't really need numbers do you? The number of active
developers is not even close to those who were active back in 2005 and
especially the number of users if not really the same. The forums are
not as active as they used to be ( as I see it ). Moreover, having so
many herds with one or two active developers is not a sign of activity
or progress either.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOSBj1AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCCLgP/jkec/IsYVt1w2HjtoJ9UUw2
uPB36y1OyyRnIUrnRiOe6gmG5fFyUkSPvk//8Ap/p2HZAduwgH6VcPwG0WDrv3Dh
Hs9+8hL5nH015qSTUYhdok6BFPWFgb8qiNz4MDIwa1VfRaecfoa3lVd91IROrnlo
xRUP8fE61tBJTd1EXrZFE2V9m8fj6ds7X/lfr9I1KBa0VRIMxn4+1vsUiTT/vEkt
ZEZLIxdPil9PbewlROEammYgvYr9nsE+FzaXvIU2geN4VYfm0lpKlPYED+k83s+3
wTE5l7QHcifhRlnkx1Jo6E9RO3k2aY9A73JAS5+u3T2L3M/Gvn9BmL3cR4LEPEVN
UZYGBWRZGjPdz/Yf62cwWGZBl3VMqYUezS5XVadX5zMKmnTx/dXAzkKneYq7GRU0
OmUjfI2yY5yQbMa2/z8L5T2oo7X4Xk6b485/uUW8aeFcymBybhAvwAo64yiEgBey
Qb4F+8nUbUGDSP6exWCV8lwf6lNntXBRsnD0o1ZBi2aV9IDPo25P6Ny2l21uY5FY
g+hPpEU3hyGevn5uUi8x8Pkuxr0NmShOFhpPP2Kvc4reTzWm8McLu5DmnkhdYSQg
vs1fTKvblntap2A/vB47RHYJJcQ1R/CjfyRNhZroMuAOmDqcwOFZN4Prygr5RB/G
eZfpg5l+v1fecjxc4nJP
=fKpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Patrick Lauer]

On 08/14/11 18:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]

>  This goes a bit OT, but if a project is dead the council MUST find a
> solution to that problem. 

How do you think council will magically do that?
You're saying "this group of a few devs will do magic that fixes problems"

I think that's a very misguided idea, what should happen is that
*everyone* gets more involved. Which means ...
- blog more so people know what you are doing
- recruit people so there are less "single points of failure" - you
going on vacation should not stop all progress on KDE
- figure out problem areas and make them prettier, even if that's not as
much fun. I resurrected a few packages that were neglected, and suddenly
users popped up to take care of them. And were immediately recruited :)
- lead by example. Want package signing? Figure out prior discussion,
provide constructive criticism and then prepare everything so people
just have to agree to it



> Creating activity is not the only solution.
It's the only one with relevant results ;)

Take care,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2729 bytes --]

Team,

I'll stir the pot a little.  No flames please, after all, we are just 
brainstorming, or to be PC having an idea shower. 


On 2011.08.14 12:06, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the next
> Council agenda (or a later one).
> 
> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders
> for QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the Council can 
> ensure that the team is active or either force some activity in case 
> the current leader slacks big time. 

The concepts of appointing leaders and monitoring activity are not 
linked. In my view a council appointed team lead is unlikely to do a 
better job than one elected by the team.  Choice of leader is therefore 
no different to any other project.

Council may want to have some documented authority to take drastic 
action in the case of slacking but that's separate again from 
appointments and monitoring.  Council would need to monitor to know 
when drastic action was required.

In short,  --Routine_Appointments, ++Monitoring ++AuthortyToAct

> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the leader 
> to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote for him on 
> next elections. 

We already have an appeal to council process that should be used.  I've 
formed the impression that these teams are as understaffed as any 
other area of Gentoo, so no *competent* help should be refused.
How competent is judged needs to be documented by the teams - e.g. a 
quiz and a practical under supervision before volunteers are turned 
away. 

> Membership and voting actions should not be related in these teams. 
> The leader will still have control over the new members but Council 
> will do the voting (community will provide feedback ofc )

What do you mean by control ?
> 
> My proposal is:
> 
> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated
Why do devrel members need to be developers?
Users with the correct skill set can do the job just as well, if they 
are interested.
> 
> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> self-nominated
Why do QA members need to be developers?
Transparent competency is what counts in all areas of a volunteer 
project. 

With council monitoring, of the QA team there is no reason to have such 
a short term.

> 
> This is just a brainstorming so please let me know what you think.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

Thats my three ha'porth.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 562 bytes --]

On 14.08.2011 17:19, Roy Bamford wrote:
> 
> What do you mean by control ?
>>
>> My proposal is:
>>
>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
>> self-nominated
> Why do devrel members need to be developers?
> Users with the correct skill set can do the job just as well, if they 
> are interested.
>

And when the users start to do the job they would become developers in
the broader sense of the term (for example in many places on our web
site Developer means anyone with @gentoo.org email).

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

On 2011.08.14 15:35, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 14.08.2011 17:19, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > 
> > What do you mean by control ?
> >>
> >> My proposal is:
> >>
> >> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they 
> can
> >> self-nominated
> > Why do devrel members need to be developers?
> > Users with the correct skill set can do the job just as well, if
> they 
> > are interested.
> >
> 
> And when the users start to do the job they would become developers 
> in the broader sense of the term (for example in many places on our 
> web
> site Developer means anyone with @gentoo.org email).
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

As I understand your reply, it would be possible for a suitably 
skilled user (no @gentoo.org) to become a member of devrel and for that 
user to become a staff member of Gentoo as a result of joining devrel.

i.e. there in no requirement to hold a @gentoo.org before getting 
actively involved in devrel.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

On 14.08.2011 19:31, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.14 15:35, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 14.08.2011 17:19, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you mean by control ?
>>>>
>>>> My proposal is:
>>>>
>>>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they 
>> can
>>>> self-nominated
>>> Why do devrel members need to be developers?
>>> Users with the correct skill set can do the job just as well, if
>> they 
>>> are interested.
>>>
>>
>> And when the users start to do the job they would become developers 
>> in the broader sense of the term (for example in many places on our 
>> web
>> site Developer means anyone with @gentoo.org email).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
>>
> 
> As I understand your reply, it would be possible for a suitably 
> skilled user (no @gentoo.org) to become a member of devrel and for that 
> user to become a staff member of Gentoo as a result of joining devrel.
> 
> i.e. there in no requirement to hold a @gentoo.org before getting 
> actively involved in devrel.
> 

Correct.

Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> I'll stir the pot a little.  No flames please, after all, we are just
>  brainstorming, or to be PC having an idea shower.
> 
Nobody is flaming :)

> 
> On 2011.08.14 12:06, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the
>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>> 
>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed
>> leaders for QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the
>> Council can ensure that the team is active or either force some
>> activity in case the current leader slacks big time.
> 
> The concepts of appointing leaders and monitoring activity are not 
> linked. In my view a council appointed team lead is unlikely to do a
>  better job than one elected by the team.  Choice of leader is
> therefore no different to any other project.
This should be the case, but what happens when the leader is inactive?
Nobody is there to control the team or to force elections. Moreover, who
is eligible to decide whether a lead is slacking or not. There is no
definition for "slacker". With my proposal, the council will avoid all
the chit-chatting ("are you active?", "yet I am", "no, it doesn't seem
so" etc ) and bureaucracy that is required before someone takes action.
> 
> Council may want to have some documented authority to take drastic 
> action in the case of slacking but that's separate again from 
> appointments and monitoring.  Council would need to monitor to know 
> when drastic action was required.
> 
> In short,  --Routine_Appointments, ++Monitoring ++AuthortyToAct
Well, what would that authority do? Report slacking teams? And then
what? We still need some drastic action from the Council.

> 
>> Furthermore, right now there is the potential problem for the
>> leader to only allow new members that he likes so they can vote for
>> him on next elections.
> 
> We already have an appeal to council process that should be used.
> I've formed the impression that these teams are as understaffed as
> any other area of Gentoo, so no *competent* help should be refused.

projects relations are not only horizontal but vertical as well.  You
can't possibly claim that the e.g virtualization@ project is as
important as the QA team is.

> How competent is judged needs to be documented by the teams - e.g. a
>  quiz and a practical under supervision before volunteers are turned
>  away.
> 
>> Membership and voting actions should not be related in these teams.
>>  The leader will still have control over the new members but
>> Council will do the voting (community will provide feedback ofc )
> 
> What do you mean by control ?
Which members can join the project and which can't


- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=qW0c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In short,  --Routine_Appointments, ++Monitoring ++AuthortyToAct

Not a bad idea.  In fact, I'd probably extend this to most areas of
Gentoo as well.  Some of these threads get a bit Kefka-ish with all
the questions raised about whether the Council has the right to do
this or that.  These kinds of attitudes amount to "if you don't like
it, tough - you have no recourse."  If Gentoo has a problem we should
fix it - not argue over whether anybody is allowed to fix it.

I'm not a fan either of the council (or trustees) micro-managing
things, or not having the ability to step in when things get out of
hand.  These are elected bodies, and generally have not shown a
tendency to heavy-handedness in any case.

Something Donnie campaigned on also rings true to my ears - we don't
need long-standing rules to deal with one-time problems.  If a team is
out of control, the council should simply step in and fix it, and then
let it run its course.  The council should be viewed as having
authority over the entire developer space, but not as something with
day-to-day involvement in everything that goes on.

Look at how any business runs.  When you have a spat with your boss
the owner of the company probably doesn't get called in to sort it out
- your boss and his boss just deal with it.  However, if the owner of
the company does happen to walk in and set things straight, you won't
find everybody arguing with him about it.  We, as the community, are
the owners of Gentoo, and we can make of it what we will.  However,
having a half-dozen elected representatives to deal with serious
issues rather than putting everything to referendum just makes sense.
That really applies to both the council and the trustees.

So, if there is a problem to be fixed, I say go fix it.  If there
isn't a problem, we don't necessarily need to look to create one...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> ...
>> 
>> Devrel: 1 year term. Developers are nominated by others or they
>> can self-nominated
> Why do devrel members need to be developers? Users with the correct
> skill set can do the job just as well, if they are interested.
devrel members are mainly recruiters, which requires ebuild and
organization knowledge. If a users has this knowledge it is not hard to
become a developer and join recruiters.

>> 
>> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can 
>> self-nominated
> Why do QA members need to be developers? Transparent competency is
> what counts in all areas of a volunteer project.
> 
QA members need to have access to gentoo-x86/ tree to fix problems as
soon as possible. This is a purely technical role so portage access is
mandatory.
- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=2WG5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

On 2011.08.14 15:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > ...
[snip]
> > Why do devrel members need to be developers? Users with the correct
> > skill set can do the job just as well, if they are interested.
> devrel members are mainly recruiters, which requires ebuild and
> organization knowledge. If a users has this knowledge it is not hard
> to become a developer and join recruiters
We are discussing devrel here, not recruiters.  I was under the 
impression (perhaps mistakenly) that devrel and recruiters were two 
separate projects.  If one has become a subset of the other by virtue 
of overlapping skill requirements and project membership maybe thats a 
pointer that the projects should be merged. While that's interesting, 
its not the topic of this thread.

Getting back to the topic, I do not understand why someone (not a 
dev) cannot be a member of devrel only. Such an individual could be 
required to become a staffer following their acceptance into devrel.    
 

> 
> >>
> >> QA: 6-month term. Developers are nominated by others or they can
> >> self-nominated
> > Why do QA members need to be developers? Transparent competency is
> > what counts in all areas of a volunteer project.
> >
> QA members need to have access to gentoo-x86/ tree to fix problems as
> soon as possible. This is a purely technical role so portage access 
> is mandatory.
If time is always of the essence, that's a perfectly valid reason.

> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 05:12 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.14 15:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> ...
> [snip]
>>> Why do devrel members need to be developers? Users with the
>>> correct skill set can do the job just as well, if they are
>>> interested.
>> devrel members are mainly recruiters, which requires ebuild and 
>> organization knowledge. If a users has this knowledge it is not
>> hard to become a developer and join recruiters
> We are discussing devrel here, not recruiters.  I was under the 
> impression (perhaps mistakenly) that devrel and recruiters were two 
> separate projects.  If one has become a subset of the other by virtue
>  of overlapping skill requirements and project membership maybe thats
> a pointer that the projects should be merged. While that's
> interesting, its not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, I do not understand why someone (not a 
> dev) cannot be a member of devrel only. Such an individual could be 
> required to become a staffer following their acceptance into devrel.
> 
> 
I am just saying how things are at the moment. Right now, devrel =
recruiters + undertakers. I am not sure if non-devs are allowed to join.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=mdxA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1139 bytes --]

On 14.08.2011 19:12, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.14 15:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> ...
> [snip]
>>> Why do devrel members need to be developers? Users with the correct
>>> skill set can do the job just as well, if they are interested.
>> devrel members are mainly recruiters, which requires ebuild and
>> organization knowledge. If a users has this knowledge it is not hard
>> to become a developer and join recruiters
> We are discussing devrel here, not recruiters.  I was under the 
> impression (perhaps mistakenly) that devrel and recruiters were two 
> separate projects.  If one has become a subset of the other by virtue 
> of overlapping skill requirements and project membership maybe thats a 
> pointer that the projects should be merged. While that's interesting, 
> its not the topic of this thread.
> 

Recruiters are a sub project of devrel. I at some point suggested the to
my predecessors that recruiters could be separate but since I have been
the lead of both how both are organized hasn't been a priority.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 15-08-2011 19:29, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 14.08.2011 19:12, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> On 2011.08.14 15:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2011 03:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>>> Team,
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>> [snip]
>>>> Why do devrel members need to be developers? Users with the 
>>>> correct skill set can do the job just as well, if they are 
>>>> interested.
>>> devrel members are mainly recruiters, which requires ebuild and 
>>> organization knowledge. If a users has this knowledge it is not 
>>> hard to become a developer and join recruiters
>> We are discussing devrel here, not recruiters.  I was under the 
>> impression (perhaps mistakenly) that devrel and recruiters were
>> two separate projects.  If one has become a subset of the other by 
>> virtue of overlapping skill requirements and project membership 
>> maybe thats a pointer that the projects should be merged. While 
>> that's interesting, its not the topic of this thread.
>> 
> 
> Recruiters are a sub project of devrel. I at some point suggested
> the to my predecessors that recruiters could be separate but since I
> have been the lead of both how both are organized hasn't been a
> priority.
> 
> Regards, Petteri

Currently the DevRel team may be composed by people that are in either
the Recruiters, the Undertakers or in both projects. That is not the
same as saying that DevRel = Recruiters + Undertakers.
For starters, joining Recruiters or Undertakers doesn't make you a
DevRel member. Also, the reason we currently have the match is that all
Recruiters and Undertakers have with time been asked to join DevRel,
that the Ombudsman, later disputer resolutions team, was extinct and
that other members not part of Recruiters or Undertakers have dropped
the team.
In my talks with Petteri about creating the Community Relations project,
merging DevRel and UserRel, our plan was to create a dispute resolutions
team again to make it clear that it is a distinct body from recruiters,
undertakers and any other project under Community Relations.
The important point here is that the skill set required for these are
not necessarily the same. One might be a great Recruiter and not have
the best mindset for being a dispute resolution member.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=BHAi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14-08-2011 11:06, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed leaders
> for QA and DevRel. I like the idea because this way the Council can
> ensure that the team is active or either force some activity in case
> the current leader slacks big time. Furthermore, right now there is
> the potential problem for the leader to only allow new members that
> he likes so they can vote for him on next elections. Membership and
> voting actions should not be related in these teams. The leader will
> still have control over the new members but Council will do the
> voting ( community will provide feedback ofc )

As I've expressed already a few times before, I strongly object to this
idea. My reasons are the following:

 * I like and agree with the way GLEP39 keeps projects separate from the
council and how it allows for open, competing and independent projects.
 * As such, I disagree with the idea the council may nominate leads for
whatever projects - this doesn't apply to council sponsored teams
created to deal with specific issues (a GLEP39 reform team would be an
example).
 * I know it's controversial, but I don't think all Gentoo teams and
projects were born "equal". I have the same respect for all, but some
teams should not have open membership as they require a certain level of
"trust" and or "authority". Getting ops on an IRC channel, getting root
on our infra, having access to sensitive information through our
security alias, dealing with personnel issues, working on a particular
team's ebuilds and or having oversight through QA,  as a few examples,
do not all require the same level of "trust" nor do they convey the same
level of "authority".
 * The list of teams in the above point, their relation to council and
what type of oversight and or intervention the council may have should
in my view be part of the discussion about GLEP39 reform.
 * To have strong and independent teams, they should be responsible to
choose their leads. In the GLEP39 reform debate, I think we should allow
a system of checks and balances that should allow the council to
intervene when a team / project fails or disintegrates, but it should
not grant it "carte blanche".
 * Both DevRel and QA teams, as some others, should not become
"popularity" teams. Their role may and can frequently lead to some
conflicts, but they should act in the best interest of Gentoo and not on
what is the "popular opinion" of the moment.

Lastly, I'm worried to see this debate "fueled" by particular incidents
and the opinion of some people about the current "state" of some teams,
when this should be a debate about ideas and "theoretical models".
I also object to some of the qualifications about the state of DevRel or
QA and don't think they convey a "fair" image of how both teams and
individual members act or have acted in the past.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=BwQv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----