Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 12:12:28AM CDT] > On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Oh, one more probably useless comment: I would argue that the decision > > to enforce an etiquette guide that devs never really got to vote on has > > lead to a lot of grief in the past. Let's not repeat that, please? If > > we're going to enforce new doctrine it should perhaps have the > > imprimatur of the Council, since if people disagree then they can fire > > the folks who made the ultimate decision. (Of course, if there's > > general consensus, then that's not really necessary.) > > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something > like this seems asinine > > if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by > the council in order for this to happen, so be it > > hopefully devs will just "get it"
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes, common courtesy should certainly be encouraged. I really wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. What I had intended to say was that in the past devrel has used the etiquette guide as a basis for censuring devs. The logic was sound enough: the etiquette guide is policy, some devs violate that policy, and devrel kicks their tails. The problem was that when the guide was created, it wasn't clear that it was intended as policy. Well, I didn't think of it as policy, anyway; I figured it was just a helpful guide for the clueless. The result was that when devrel started enforcing the etiquette guide, many devs complained that a policy was being enforced that was never really approved as such by the devs. Of course, the pretty thorough hashing that this current proposal is getting pretty much means that this time is much different than the last, and that I should probably just shut up now. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpBMC3bPkfkN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
