From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8E213800E for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F2DCE0682 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:02:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48DAE07D2 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:24:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so4549462bkw.40 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=K7yCihodODXfboEqiqVhC2Q68in6UucSJb748V1iU3A=; b=s2YdHTLTYSTBpYqFo7P906XJJ850vw7gaYN+jXipLZPf9FQOnexzI+gPIEB/a6vTtK ddt1SUhnaH/gNw34FDeDyHItfNM5zsDLXawozSKE8docx4a8cwIv6fPH5ZrqkgR8EFT+ NLYl3CVms45D+dTfsEI4WTxC/ACh82Xkcpnu9QlhCZ3CboIoPne7rAV+XwX65f/rBVP/ DpRSyinToRqkf1TiZaUmiOVV7ruNL58I323Y1dY+GLmo3zhRp8nLBMUtoTtKi+qFroCn XGom07hm8QmHrHo85Y+kHpy8BrzFFHOySRBrG/vjDN8+QgH6m22PquFk2L0ibgO7VpON lXHQ== 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 Received: by 10.204.152.211 with SMTP id h19mr7272337bkw.45.1343024640623; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.35.79 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <500C871C.10804@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:24:00 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2L7HmA4D5O4WBjGq8q-gkpg12aY Message-ID: Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgentoo=2Dproject=5D_Re=3A_=5Bgentoo=2Dcore=5D_Petteri_R=E4ty?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_=28betelgeuse=29_re=2Delected_as_Developer_Relations_Lead?= From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 3df64bf2-98a3-4d01-89f2-05ec6accbd0b X-Archives-Hash: 3fc0a55e0f7f733cf734e434f0df91ed On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > Since Council functions also as a "court of appeal" for DevRel, I would > like to see us adopt a policy that people cannot be a member of both > Council and DevRel. This would avoid any possible conflict of interest. > > What do others think about this? I've spoken out against this before and will do so again. 1. The council is elected and therefore has a mandate. If you don't trust somebody to exercise appropriate judgment in this capacity you shouldn't be voting for them. 2. Devrel is important and excluding those who the community have decided most capable of leading the organization from it is only going to make it weaker. I never really got the conflict of interest thing. A conflict of interest is when somebody's own personal interests are in conflict with those of the organization they are supposed to represent. If a member of infra recommends that Gentoo buy hosting at some company they do work on the side for, then that is a conflict of interest (which isn't to say that they can't be on infra - just that they need to be very up-front about such things - conflicts can be mitigated). Members of devrel don't personally benefit from making disciplinary decisions, at least not usually. Neither do council members. Now you could argue that such a policy would make devrel and the council more independent, but I'd argue that they're probably too independent as it is. In most organizations the leadership at the top sets the direction, and it is the job of everybody else to do their part to keep the ship moving in that direction. The idea that individual projects within Gentoo should be operating in complete autonomy and the council shouldn't get involved unless asked is basically saying that we place little value on central leadership (well, except when things blow up and people start openly debating whether we should have a benevolent dictator - talk about bipolar). I'd say that if anything the policy should be that Devrel as a team can elect a proposed leader, but that the council should be required to confirm this recommendation, and that they should have the power to completely ignore it and appoint anyone else. That's certainly how most organizations run - the HR department at work doesn't just pick its own manager and tell the CEO to buzz off if they meddle too much. If the council isn't simply upholding the decisions of Devrel 99% of the time then something is very wrong. If Devrel really isn't doing its job right then fix it, don't let it muddle along dragging people through a big process that they ignore on the hope that they'll get everything reversed on appeal. For those inclined to point to courts where appeals are handled by "independent" panels of judges keep in mind this independence is often an illusion. The lower court actually is governed by the higher one, and while there are different people involved the lower judges can lose their jobs if the higher ones don't like their rulings too often. These bodies are not independent - the one is completely subservient to the other in just about every way. The lower court really only exists since the higher one is too busy to handle every case directly. Rich