-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01-06-2011 22:59, Rich Freeman wrote: <snip> > I think the problem is that we're getting a bit legalistic here. I > have no idea why we even needed the policy change. IMHO what should > happen is: > > 1. Dev does something significant and doesn't update a Changelog. > 2. QA or another dev calls them on it. Tells them not to do it again. > 3. Dev does it again. > 4. QA or another dev escalates to devrel. Devrel deals with the > issue, resulting in either a dev who takes the rules more seriously or > one less dev. > > What it almost sounds like to me is that step 4 is breaking down. > Perhaps somebody is arguing "well, it isn't clear in the rules so you > can't do anything to me." To that my only answer is "sure we can!"
Rich, besides a disagreement on how to deal with policy issues (as you can read in my proposal to update GLEP48), the issue here is *exactly* that whenever developers or QA warned *repeatedly* the people that don't update ChangeLogs (a very restrict minority of developers), they've always tried to find loopholes in the policy and argued others had no support for their request. About step 4 breaking down, the DevRel process would face the same hurdle as the above, but then there's another important point that people really need to think about: Do we really want to take all technical issues to DevRel and in the limit fire people "only" for that? I'm not saying that technical issues aren't relevant for DevRel or that people can't get "fired" because of them, but in my experience the role of DevRel is more to evaluate the ability and willingness of developers to work in the team than to fire someone because they failed to apply a policy here or there - to be clear, I'm talking here about mistakes and ignorance, not about defiance and disregard for others and policy - which in my view constitute the sort of behaviour patterns that DevRel is meant to evaluate, help fixing and, when everything else fails, to remove. > When it comes to money and taxes we need to have pretty clear rules > for legal reasons, but when it comes down to expecting devs to be > mature and team players, I don't think that we really need 14 appeals > and a team of lawyers to eliminate every loophole in our policies. If > a misunderstanding is genuine then everybody should get past it > quickly and maybe we update the policy to be more clear. When > policies are flaunted despite explanation, and the authority of devrel > or QA or whatever and ultimately the council (on appeal) is > questioned, then we're not playing like a team. It is amazing what > intelligent people can fail to understand when getting something they > want depends on it. The sad fact is that increasingly it seems our developer base, or a significant part of it, is losing all "common sense". > Just my two cents... That, and in the big scheme of things this is a > bit of a tempest in a teapot but I do share concerns that QA is an > attitude and small problems today just lead to big ones tomorrow. > > Rich - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN5s33AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPFEcP/2tLhDBXR24AF/GunN5BHKQy +fganpXgO1OqZcFX6tEG7h+j6fjbSFwTPaNG9CiSyrz/NsYseuL7wzkxXZawfUax ftiaFuOuKvLd56AizO0y0YNfrvIVxp2rTPas17yg+Noqgm3Hd5voh2J9FkN3x8X9 PPd8yA8f4DXA4ptdihGS694edtDtT2WwMVGbPuGl6I3U0tlLYlPyGoQDRaAhvQoB LnOzqrYxFxDxcEUWyae25dp3DI1rhqWw8cUc1We6lOZENOtGxiLuxToIorVB8lAs b3SB326WI5XJRyHWgWtcPkF9OrQvpsDXgO9YEqBbsXn3w6vsj2rD8IeswMGNt66R h4cmHEwXEyZ9iQPEPwJKi/UI6MZHTM5ezYJDAbBxBuLt5dPuR7RQBspHkyjSSFe8 /RPLDYy0UYnh0uUw1Rq7DCB5rhLf9acnGhT247q+5PNMcfdN3aBYPIK2ruqTQGKD SfNefj0tKJCXd/TsQUSn7GP7SLjiBNh7Ym+qy8Q5TFQs49vhYprbqRn6RdsMpPe6 eeHNiNzSw9Cfi6n/ZidHlvOXUM7g2yVOLzJ9ChzZRhftxABMWMJCzYvQfjE6Eqey +pVX372nI2G9e9UErS8/Zfxxxw/+vOE7DLLYKe9HSXeM3XdNwEzotdcN+Xxth3f/ R5tVPjMUL3TACOcqA/zr =vsto -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
