On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please? > Yes, that's a completely petty point, but it was the first > one that came to mind. Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: "an official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good order." [1]
I'm going to continue to use the term in my response here, for lack of anything else, but really, suggestions to the name are welcome. > * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct > and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette policy: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=2 Read them side by side (Ubuntu and the existing policy) is a little harder, as the layout is very different, but the core message is the same. However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories behind why are rife within Gentoo. > > Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in > > order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at > > 2100UTC. > * I understand the desire to act quickly, so that it appears that Gentoo > is doing something about this problem. However, I agree with those who > think that a few days isn't really enough time for an adequate > discussion. For this sort of policy to be effective, devs need to > agree with it. The Council can still make temporary rules on Thursday > while allowing the rest of the process to occur more leisurely. As the council, you have charged us with ensuring a technical direction for Gentoo. We are working on it, we really are. In the meantime, we saying that the buck stops here, because right now, Gentoo is being seriously damaged as a distribution. If these rules don't help matters in the short term, please really do bring another proposal (some hybrid of the Ubuntu CoC even), either to us, or the council that succeeds us. > * Having a group of folks separate from devrel who would be doing > similar things to what devrel does (when devrel isn't involved in > recruiting) somehow seems a bit silly. I'd much rather we just broaden > that part of Developer Relations to Community Relations. I'd to quote from Christel's mail here: "2. The Proctors is not a new name for Devrel. They would fall under Devrel territory, but as a newly formed group under the leadership and supervision of the Council. A decision as to numbers and electing proctors has not yet been reached -- we are working out these details as we speak. (My suggestion here is to select a group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds within Gentoo, taking care to avoid 'old boys clubs' and cliques)" Simply renaming devrel to commrel and handing them the task won't solve anything - there will still be complaints that devrel is being unfair (and is indeed why your Ombuds position exists). As the council, we will require of the Proctors that they are impartial and fair. > * Ubuntu requires that their devs sign a copy of their code of conduct. > (I assume an electronic signature suffices?) Would that be a good > idea for us to do something similar? I don't really have a strong > feeling one way or another. How do we enforce this on users (both those that were never developers as well as those that were ex-developers) fairly then? I see equal enforcement as a benefit here. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proctor -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpojdFNg5w3o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
