On 2007.07.13 18:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, > now > > > would be the time. > > > > Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some > time > > now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive. > [snip stuff I mostly agree with] > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering Strategic Lead > Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams > Games Developer/Soon to be former Council Member and glad/Foundation > Trustee > Gentoo Foundation >
The original vision for the proctors failed because the council perceived that the proctors was going to be a a high profile, preemptive action project, mostly on the -dev mailing list. To be preemptive requires time to act - which is just not possible without moderation or some form of delay. To be high profile requires to be very public too, so there is actually a profile to see at all. Human nature dictates that individuals don't like the 'loss of face' associated with having their shortcomings pointed out in public, thus the most successful proctors work was carried out on a one to one basis, not preemtively and in a very low profile way. In my opinion, the project was successful in improving communications but not in the way it was originally envisioned by the council when the project was started. Oh - a final word on the proctors ... there is no need to be a member of any project to smooth out misunderstandings or help improve communications. A thick skin to avoid being upset when you try to help and its not required is an asset though. I don't like the proposed ML change, for several reasons. 1. As others have said, it will create a class structure within Gentoo, with non-dev contributors becoming second class citizens. At the same time, the barrier to becoming a develper will be increased. 2. Something that can be done by *anybody* (list moderation) will be done by *nobody* - You only need look around at your workplace to see that. Worse still, if the proposed moderation actually happens, it will be based on nepotism. I say that because people will only look at posts they are likely to be interested in. 3. Gentoo is a living organism ... users (including devs) contribute what they can when they can. As has already been discussed, organisations go through several major structural changes as they grow and its possible gentoo is due one now. Keeping in mind those three points I propose that :- a) -core is unchanged b) -dev has its scope narrowed to gentoo wide technical issues only c) -per herd lists are used for traffic that does not concern almost everyone. This reducing the scope of of -dev reduces the noise on the list as presently, even the on topic posts are noise to most devs. The above restructuring allows room for gentoo to grow, without creating any second class citizens and reduces the perceived noise on - dev at the same time. Should the council want to enable moderation, they need to appoint a group to do it *everyone* simply won't work. Finding members might be difficult as the original ML control group has just been disbanded. Before the council vote on this latest idea, I suggest they learn from the open source movement and look at other distros that have survived to become bigger (head count) than Gantoo and see what they did. There is no need to reinvent the wheel or suffer from the 'not invented here' syndrome. Drawing on what other distros or large projects have done is the was OSS works. The worst thing the council can do is vote this measure as a parting gesture, a process that cannot be completed before the existing councils last meeting on 9th August. It needs proper research and consideration so is best left to the incoming council since they will have to live with the decision. Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySegoon) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
