[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Council manifesto of sping
From:       Sebastian Pipping <sping () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2010-06-30 0:45:08
Message-ID: 4C2A9394.3060307 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Arun,


On 06/22/10 07:13, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On reading again, you do have suggestions on how you would deal with
> most of what you've spoken. The only one that I think could use more
> details (other than all the references to "tone" which I think we
> should let rest for a while) is "Opening up documentation" - do you
> have any ideas for this process that might help with this while
> maintaining the quality the docs team has maintained thus far?

One way could be allowing everyone to commit to the main documentation
and ensure there's enough review going on.  A sunrise like a approach
with two stages "pre-review" and "reviewed" (i.e. those files served
publically) could work well with two Git branches.


> As a follow up question, for documentation, PR, the website redesign,
> and templates, do you feel that these are tasks that need to be
> addressed by council members? Is there anything preventing you from
> taking the ball and running with it if you don't get elected into the
> council?

Yes, not all of them are exclusive to the council.


> And another one for "More direct democracy":
> 
> a) How would you decide what questions go up for public vote and which
> ones stay with the council?

Good question!  I think a few voices from developers (say three)
requesting a vote should force a global vote.  If the council were
deciding on that, the concept would be useless.  At least that's my
current understanding.


> b) For questions like "- Should Python 3.x be stable?", isn't that for
> team leads to decide? And for the council to resolve in case of
> conflicts?

It's too important to leave it to the Python team alone in my eyes.
Previous threads have shown that consensus is hard to find on Python 3.x
related topics.  A direct vote from all developers would reveal what the
majority really wants for that topic.


> c) For questions like "- Should developer X be banned?", would you be
> willing to do this if it meant a lot of washing of dirty linen in
> public, or protracted flamewars (and other reasons why we have a bunch
> of level-headed people in place to deal with this calmly and quietly)?
> If no, where would you draw the line? If yes, how would you deal with
> the fallout?

I'm not understanding all of that, honestly.
On a part I understood: Solving isues on that front may be worth extra
"noise" as the goal is to noticably improve atmosphere after.
Please help me to understand the rest of your question.

Best,



Sebastian

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]