-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 23-10-2007 11:22, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:43:16AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> wrote:
>> If, for instance, we need to change people and we
>> are creating the rules just to allow us to remove them or
>> to interfere and ask for the change, then I think we need
>> a better approach.
>
> How exactly can we implement a change in composition, without creating
> a set of procedures to do that? What better approach is there?
> Telepathy? Divine intervention? :)
Divine intervention sounds good, at least people always
says the it tends do be fair. :-)
Anyway, the main point of my concern is the fact that
if we change a team without fixing the origin of the malfunction
we will have problems once again, and as I said, communicating
is part of this, if the teams do not communicate (and that
sounds like a symptom of malfunctioning) how can we guess that
changing A or B (or the whole team) would solve that.
I'm not saying that the proposal is not good, do not
get me wrong, I'm trying to add more scenarios and get more
input to try to help getting a better proposal.
> Perhaps I misunderstood that sentence. Maybe you meant to say that the
> option of appointing people by others is missing?
That also, but I'm saying that in some cases, we could
be trying to solve the wrong problem (because a lot of use do
not have the details, and probably we will never have). I'm not
saying that we shouldn't try to fix it, I was just raising
another point to be considered.
>> I keep asking myself if the rules might have a negative effect on healthy
>> teams?
>
> I'd appreciate some more concrete scenarios, so that they can be addressed.
I do not have them, sorry, it was just something I
thought based on "HE" message about Release Team working
without problems (and without rules). It would be sad if
they were negatively affected by the new rules, but I don't
think I can speak about their scenarios, sorry.
>> If frustration for some reason with another team or some part of the
>> project is one of the factors, shouldn't we also work on that?
>
> How can we codify that? Oblige people to get along with... everyone from all
> other teams? How do we gauge that, and what's the response to transgressions?
>
> I'm not against also trying to fix that, and the social committee could
> probably help there, but this proposal primarily intends to tackle the
> problem of people who go latent, which is IMHO the more pressing concern.
I understood that, and I still think it is a good
starting point to get the discussion, as I said, I was
just raising the concern, I had no intention to make it a
final statement or to solve all the problems in that message.
It was more like if we all are in a chat in any given
afternoon at DebConf speaking about something involving Debian
and freely exchanging ideas, views, concerns... I don't think
forcing people to get along would work, and it sounds obvious,
but ask them to report, to talk about it, to explain their
points would, IMVHO, be the way to go but, unfortunately, it
seems quite difficult to happen, and here comes the need for
the "intervention rules".
I understand the motivation, I'm not questioning it,
I'm just wondering about other possibilities and how we would
be able to solve that talking with each other. :-)
Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHHhe4CjAO0JDlykYRAllUAKC8/gMn6oN5Ch1MhnU8YRdt+wSERQCgkBa9
z2ojW/eKOVug/OJ0BhhqTiA=
=eEBV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
