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
