From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QsbqW-0001S1-1y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:39:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E09E921C229; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D648021C218 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxd23 with SMTP id 23so3995347fxd.40 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2IHEkYXxfs9yCkffaEtrCKFX5sfbcQNyOgb5NFhmlfI=; b=fOLf1sr2xRjoTbcDIS3vHEc9R23FjyIRzqu+BAglvIdb4QG9y0Axpl8ZIYY5xfZDvi YgAK2UovzR8VbbLFHmxjrgUDO5oWBowzUO3xIVlA4RSkYv+xD7yhvSsSIf3RvWCaODqX ypdq72bLM7aCyIkLWFE+4t7llrcsrFSDfPfcI= 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 10.223.144.136 with SMTP id z8mr4139457fau.31.1313332745053; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.105.208 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1313331597.2962.0@NeddySeagoon> References: <4E47AC51.3030201@gentoo.org> <1313331597.2962.0@NeddySeagoon> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:39:05 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: j5z-V3ONMTDS14Cri4L3JhPkbEU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4bf3b354c9522475aca1f8d8d46ffa9d On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Roy Bamford wro= te: > In short, =A0--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