Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:58:43PM -0700, Chrissy Fullam wrote: Developer Relations will continue to assist on requests and any extra bit that we can. We will see which way this ML thing takes Gentoo and offer our support in any way we can. Nice statement from a PR POV, but i really have problems understanding the actual message. :-P So the way i read it devrel would like to do something if requested, but isn't supposed to enforce the CoC, nor has the authority? cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpEQuXa0HCE8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 09:41 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: So the way i read it devrel would like to do something if requested, but isn't supposed to enforce the CoC, nor has the authority? Considering that the Code of Conduct is a subset of the regular Gentoo developer policies that Developer Relations already enforces, I would say that they are definitely enforcing the CoC and have the authority. What DevRel currently doesn't have is authority to exercise over users, rather than just developers. Basically, we're back to where we were before we had the Proctors, except we have a more succinct document on what is expected behavior. There are several proposals out now (you've seen the enormous thread, I'm sure) dealing with possible alternative solutions to the Proctors. One of them will likely be implemented some time soon. We'll just have to wait and see. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:09:58PM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Considering that the Code of Conduct is a subset of the regular Gentoo developer policies that Developer Relations already enforces, I would say that they are definitely enforcing the CoC and have the authority. What DevRel currently doesn't have is authority to exercise over users, rather than just developers. Basically, we're back to where we were before we had the Proctors, except we have a more succinct document on what is expected behavior. There are several proposals out now (you've seen the enormous thread, I'm sure) dealing with possible alternative solutions to the Proctors. One of them will likely be implemented some time soon. We'll just have to wait and see. That was about what i would have guessed - thanks for the explanation. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgprmZU3hcjLW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 05:11:56PM +0200, Timothy Redaelli wrote: I have always thought that proctors/COC is useless, I vote to remove it. Proctors have already been removed in the last council meeting. As far the CoC is concerned, i'm not sure what the current status is and if anyone is supposed to enforce it atm (devrel? userrel?). cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgps7Ewljdh12.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:08:31 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 05:11:56PM +0200, Timothy Redaelli wrote: I have always thought that proctors/COC is useless, I vote to remove it. Proctors have already been removed in the last council meeting. As far the CoC is concerned, i'm not sure what the current status is and if anyone is supposed to enforce it atm (devrel? userrel?). I am sure not devrel. That's one reason we had proctors to begin with. Council, I guess. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) Wernfried, regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGm/1pQa6M3+I///cRAhHkAJ9Ooi4ey+bsAg9cONKbA+PxJryC3ACfZ4xz oYJUpkqvVBy4nF3LcbVKOV8= =mLhy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
Ferris McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far the CoC is concerned, i'm not sure what the current status is and if anyone is supposed to enforce it atm (devrel? userrel?). I am sure not devrel. That's one reason we had proctors to begin with. Council, I guess. While I cant say for sure what fmccor meant by the above comment, I can say that he is speaking for himself, not on behalf of the Developer Relations team. Developer Relations will continue to assist on requests and any extra bit that we can. We will see which way this ML thing takes Gentoo and offer our support in any way we can. Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
Alle domenica 15 luglio 2007, Ferris McCormick ha scritto: Here's one I should sleep on -- I didn't: Not much. Very few Comments. I'll start them. 1. Council is just wrong. They are also just gone. 2. I am just wrong. Most likely. 3. Council blew it. They ignore what proctors were doing, killed COC, and punted.. I have always thought that proctors/COC is useless, I vote to remove it. -- Timothy `Drizzt` Redaelli - http://dev.gentoo.org/~drizzt/ FreeSBIE Developer, Gentoo Developer, GUFI Staff There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors
3. Council blew it. They ignore what proctors were doing, killed COC, and punted.. ++ Poor job or rather interests conflict. On 7/15/07, Ferris McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here's one I should sleep on -- I didn't: Not much. Very few Comments. I'll start them. 1. Council is just wrong. They are also just gone. 2. I am just wrong. Most likely. 3. Council blew it. They ignore what proctors were doing, killed COC, and punted.. - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmXFmQa6M3+I///cRAvbLAJ9aV327q7fteXaN0iVXJ1EXgV+ISgCfZPrw FhIdcA3alnuNmkQu6HLzmqA= =VAq+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ioannis Aslanidis deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0xB9B11F4E -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
