On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Ian Delaney <idel...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to > communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads > as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering > and appease the provider. What's wrong with this picture?
While I agree that this had a bit of a rough start, I don't think it is realistic for any Gentoo project to tailor how it communicates to each individual. By all means find the 80% solution that works for most, but if having bugs being opened seems to be the best solution, we can't really have individual developers saying "don't open bugs for me - just ping me on IRC/email/phone/the-bar-at-the-next-FOSDEM/etc." I suggest we focus more on finding that common solution. FWIW I don't see any issue with this stuff being public. It shouldn't be personal, and we should be making feedback as helpful as reasonably possible. That could be as simple as an email signature that says "the above feedback is intended to be concise and is targeted at an experienced Gentoo developer, if you have any questions about how to handle it please do ABC to get help." Just having an invitation for support would probably go a long way, and we could have a separate set of volunteers (perhaps overlapping) who volunteer to provide this help. To the extent that anything is said which shouldn't be said in public, we probably shouldn't be saying it in private either, at least not in the context of this project. My concern with the -dev list was more that it ends up being a lot of noise for most on the list, not that it is public. That's why I suggested a top-5 list or something like that, which would have weeded out false positives and focus more on resolutions and trends than individual incidents. -- Rich
