FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:00 AM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Hello!


yngwin's devaway message still reads

"inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".

yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.


I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:

1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public

Idea: If you share private information you have a right
to know with whom you share.

2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict
resolution with distinct aliases.

3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
team just like we do with the council.

4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
with devrel are taken to).

Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel
I can tell this dossn't work well. I suppose that
Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better.

Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members
nominated for the upcoming council election.
As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be
understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the
council and increasing mine as a result. However, as I
propose to start over with a developer voted conflict
resolution team this is not the case. The only
implication is that if they make it to the council
they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team.


DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on
that working well. If you care about this please make yourself heard.

Thanks,



Sebastian
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:33 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

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

On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> yngwin's devaway message still reads
>
> "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
>
> yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.

Sebastian,

not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a
complete picture about what happened.

> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
>
> 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public
>
> Idea: If you share private information you have a right
> to know with whom you share.

I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
Relations project members is private.
You can check the alias members directly by running "grep devrel
/var/mail/master.aliases" on woodpecker and you can check the project
members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/

> 2) Clearly split DevRel into groups for recruiting and conflict
> resolution with distinct aliases.

There are subgroups in the DevRel team, including recruiters and
undertakers, and there are specific aliases for those - recruiters and
retirement. The conflict resolution is handled through the devrel alias
as the Ombudsman project was dissolved 1 or 2 years ago.
You can check the membership to the subgroups in the DevRel page.

> 3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
> team just like we do with the council.

AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict
resolution members by "popularity" is a very bad idea.

> 4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
> and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
> with devrel are taken to).

The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to
alert developers to possible conflicts.
To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that
disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it
were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an
agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to "appeal" to the
council.

> Idea: From insight on cases of DevRel versus members of RevRel
> I can tell this dossn't work well. I suppose that
> Council against Council-DevRel doesn't work better.
>
> Problem: Both betelgeuse and jmbsvicetto are DevRel members
> nominated for the upcoming council election.
> As I am also nominated proposing such rule could be
> understood aiming at decreasing their chances on the
> council and increasing mine as a result. However, as I
> propose to start over with a developer voted conflict
> resolution team this is not the case. The only
> implication is that if they make it to the council
> they cannot be elected for the conflict resolution team.

My response to your email has nothing to do with the above and to make
it crystal clear, this is my personal opinion and doesn't represent the
global view of the DevRel team or any other team I am a member of.

> DevRel is one of the most important things in Gentoo - we dependend on
> that working well. If you care about this please make yourself heard.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Sebastian

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMGW1pAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP4bAQAL1da+zyT//dvMdmv4cxaTth
DzU5R0/NYOFnqlRKSUuRoSu63mPyL9XshAUZsdzY71qhYYtCzdhbqbIDN V84C5fm
vdOTmV0dQyEbqvV0jI6rrsevyvuQ0g40IjuMFH8kkXmpD982OF Ab22l3BZWE5Evh
sk+LYnRWuzXLsptsJj2gumvsf7MrjdpwYmU65W6kJutKYovB9o trqwea75yGObnA
/21TmNOm8UAYIFHndxu7iC93yy2obMxbPy/XLuKAavsr5kU/kyJGIsRq8oWnrBwN
pX2lmyDIPdSM41k+HZtM0Rs4kCYW1WgMT8Ntq6I4dvHdL1WlHi IGrDWal1hGhHhM
smh1Exrjk8FJ4hjjD6O99VSa1JY7AVurGbPHOOaQxAIhb/tKqrdaQxG9bypTQhqD
uV2QmeSilv0cSxyTtUxmISIb3z2+Xez+lD/ZPmmPnmhaEhieudR7X/K3lXQVk1GF
lBY11QjNmJ4zubIyty2edHDuxT0wvNFdDNH9gv6nxmPEZmjn6A pNfB3/lu+QWkQM
4WHINu+eXGyAzkLKxcpOgNOFw5IJyHsz3OBhs8y7YXSWNbZrIr kbnW7zrx0hkGOV
kv1L25u6rVCdvLZvRvYMRnhh+AkxLdIfqDcc7H5cQDvRveWVLM 5yRf2071XiZjWE
c5S8QMNGCcAVo/60fL5S
=1QFB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:41 AM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> *4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
> * *and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
> * *with devrel are taken to).

i have yet to see this being necessary. the one or two times there
was a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time
and cleanly resolved.

i.e. it isnt a problem
-mike
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:41 AM
Jeremy Olexa
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:00:21 +0200, Sebastian Pipping
<sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> yngwin's devaway message still reads
>
> "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
>
> yngwin retired. I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.

How do you have "enough insight" to know this stuff? Was it public? I
consider myself pretty active in the community and don't know a thing
about yngwin's case. It is all pretty vague to me. /me shrugs.

> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
> <snip>

I can't comment on the rest due to the above.

-Jeremy
 
Old 06-17-2010, 01:05 AM
Ben de Groot
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On 17 June 2010 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> yngwin's devaway message still reads
>>
>> * "inactive, pending resolution of devrel issue".
>>
>> yngwin retired. *I woudn't go as far as saying that his case made him
>> retire but I definitely say that _DevRel failed on his case_.
>> I believe I had enough insight to be able to say.
>
> Sebastian,
>
> not being in the Developer Relations team means you don't have a
> complete picture about what happened.

I've been in contact with Sebastian since the beginning of my conflict
with Calchan, and kept him in the loop. Apart from anything that might
have taken place behind the closed doors of DevRel that I myself don't
know about either, he has a good picture of what happened.


>> *4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>> * * and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>> * * with devrel are taken to).
>
> The reason the elections page clearly identifies members of devrel is to
> alert developers to possible conflicts.
> To clarify your above statement, I read it as being about the fact that
> disciplinary actions of DevRel can be appealed to the Council. If it
> were meant globally, I'd have to note that whenever you cannot reach an
> agreement with any project or their lead, you'll have to "appeal" to the
> council.

I indicated to Sebastian that if DevRel's verdict in my case would
turn out to be negative, that I am not inclined to appeal to Council.
As two of the most influential DevRel members happen to also be two of
the most influential Council members, I would not expect a different
outcome.

I think there is a conflict of interest here, and I agree with
Sebastian that it would be better if that were avoided.

Cheers,
Ben
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:52 AM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

On 17.6.2010 2.00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
> I would like to propose these fundamental changes to DevRel:
>

Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project. I also find
it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this
thread but I have no objections to having discussions about how devrel
works. Let's have any further discussion on the proper mailing list (I
set Reply-To with the hopes of moving it there).

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:56 AM
Duncan
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:41:21 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> *4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group
>> * *and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues
>> * *with devrel are taken to).
>
> i have yet to see this being necessary. the one or two times there was
> a conflict of interest, there was a minor discussion ahead of time and
> cleanly resolved.
>
> i.e. it isnt a problem

There's also a practical problem in such a restriction. DevRel is
understaffed. I've seen observations to the effect that most developers
aren't interested in getting involved in that area, particularly in
reference to the conflict resolution subgroup, and by the nature of the
problem, this isn't likely to change.

It's also quite true that those interested in the admin aspects including
conflict resolution are likely to be drawn to both devrel and council.
Based on the above, we're already picking from a limited subset. Do we
/really/ want to restrict it further? /Can/ we restrict it further,
without severe practical effects due to restricting the number of folks
willing to run for either council or devrel, if not both? Will the result
be a drop in the quality of candidates willing to run for either team? If
there's five slots and only six people running, how much of a choice is
there, really? What about if only three accept their nominations? Will
that be the result, particularly if the other suggestions are implemented
as well, and people are elected for devrel-conflictres directly?

In an infinitely large group, with an infinite number of potential
candidates and thus an infinite number willing to run, the idea has
merit. As the group gets smaller, dangers appear. Is the group of Gentoo
devels small enough, and self-selected enough against interest in this
area, that the dangers cancel out or worse the positives? That I don't
know, as I'm not a dev and certainly not on devrel or council, with the
experience to say, but from various comments I've read over the years from
those qualified to know, it's at minimum, a close call.

Would anybody with better insight into these things care to comment?
Perhaps I read into the various comments something that wasn't there, or
maybe those making the comments were ill-informed themselves, or it may be
that the problems are already corrected and it'd be fine now. I don't
know, but I'm worried about it, thus this post.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 06-17-2010, 11:16 AM
Markos Chandras
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

*4) Disallow membership with both the conflict resolution group

* *and the council at the same time (as the council is where issues

* *with devrel are taken to).


** *Excellent point. Furthermore, in every*Democratic foundation in this planet the authority entity is completely detached to the*disciplinary one***
 
Old 06-17-2010, 02:37 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Jorge,


On 06/17/10 02:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> 1) Make the list of subscribers to the devrel alias public
>
> I don't know what gave you the idea that the list of the Developer
> Relations project members is private.
> You can check the alias members directly by running "grep devrel
> /var/mail/master.aliases" on woodpecker and you can check the project
> members at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/

I see. I didn't know about /var/mail/master.aliases. I assumed that I
would have found it with something like

find /var/mail/alias/ | grep devrel

if it were public and thefore assumed it to be private. Sorry.


> [..] in my opinion choosing conflict
> resolution members by "popularity" is a very bad idea.

In my understanding people voting on candidates for a conflict
resolution team vote for them with faith they will do a good job on that
position later. How come you expect that to be driven by popularity?

Best,



Sebastian
 
Old 06-17-2010, 03:00 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Proposing fundamental changes to DevRel

Petteri,


On 06/17/10 09:52, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Wrong mailing list. This thread belongs to gentoo-project.

that's what I am referring to with "tone in Gentoo".
I want the other 80% of you on the council.

In my opinion the DevRel topic is too important to hide it on a mailing
list with a fraction of subscribers. I wrote here on purpose.

Among the very first things a Gentoo dev learns is that the
gentoo-project mailing list is a list for topics no one really cares about.
If you ask me we should resolve that list and merge it into gentoo-dev.
It's note a pure approach, but it could work better.


> I also find
> it weird that you didn't consult the devrel alias before starting this
> thread

In my eyes these issues are something that the whole Gentoo project
needs to know about and to decide upon, not DevRel itself.

Especially discussing to replace the team of conflict resolvers with a
group of elected people isn't something I expect to work well on an
inner discussion with DevRel. My latest discussion with DevRel (and
it's ending) may have added to it.

Best,



Sebastian
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org