Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>
> At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the
> team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification:
> "The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
> the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and
> pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct
> action."
>

I would suggest that if for whatever reason we do want to impose
further restrictions on Comrel membership, that we consider that these
may not be as necessary for QA membership.

A key difference between the two groups is that as far as I'm aware
all QA actions are completely public.  If there is an issue everybody
can see that it exists, and take whatever action needed to correct it.

With Comrel there is more of a need to trust the individuals involved,
since the proceedings are not as transparent.

One thing I would suggest doing in general is to apply the same rules
to the Comrel lead as to the QA lead:

* The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or
public election among the members of the team, and confirmed by the
council. The QA team lead can choose one member as a deputy. The
deputy has all of his powers directly delegated from the QA team lead
and thus his actions and decisions should be considered equal to those
of the QA team lead. The deputy is directly responsible only to the QA
team lead.

* The QA lead's term expires one year after confirmation, and during
any period that the position is vacant the council may appoint an
interim lead.


Applying the same rules to Comrel would give it a bit more of a
mandate, though if the goal is some kind of independence from the
Council this policy would in fact reduce it.  I personally don't like
having multiple leadership teams in Gentoo that do not have any kind
of hierarchy, because it can lead to sustained conflict.  So, given a
choice of a directly-elected Comrel or a Comrel appointed by Council
I'd prefer the latter.

Part of me wonders if a lot of this debate is really a proxy for a
different debate: whether Comrel ought to be more or less active.  If
you're a fan of Comrel being less active then you'd want a Comrel and
Council that largely disagreed, because it meant that any action taken
by the one would probably be undone by the other, and to the degree
that members of one can't serve on the other causes manpower issues,
so much the better.  If you're a fan of Comrel being more active then
you'd want to ensure that only seriously flawed actions get undone,
and you would want to ensure that Comrel is well-manned.

Finally, I'd just like to note that as far as I'm aware there have
only been two appeals of Comrel decisions in the time I served on the
council (a number of years) and in both cases the decisions were
upheld despite all Comrel members recusing themselves from votes.
Comrel actions historically have been rare, and recusal vs non-recusal
wouldn't have made any difference (to do so the Comrel members would
have had to have voted against the previous Comrel decisions).  That
isn't necessarily a reason to not have this discussion, but IMO in
practice this hasn't been much of a historical problem.

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> [about QA's role]

Sorry, I didn't spend attention to the fact that the message I was
replying to was in the wrong list. Please continue in gentoo-project
where this thread belongs.


pgp8a3bnmBxzU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> Dean Stephens schrieb:
>>> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary
>>> action against non-members, which there is no recourse against
>>> except appeal to the Council.
>>> 
>> At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific
>> channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki.

> Council, QA and Comrel are effectively the governing bodies of
> Gentoo, enacting and/or enforcing project-wide policy on their own
> accord. The others that you mention have only direct power in a very
> limited area.

At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the
team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification:
"The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and
pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct
action."

The latter is meant in the sense of direct action to the tree (and
even then, overriding maintainers is not the default). The QA team
doesn't have the power to take any direct disciplinary action against
developers.

Theoretically, in the case of continuing breakage caused by a dev, QA
could ask ComRel to have that dev's commit access suspended. I cannot
remember any case where such a measure was taken (correct me if I am
wrong).

So, it appears that QA has teeth but need not use them. ;)

Ulrich


pgpOPB9l6BwRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[M. J. Everitt]

On 13/02/18 20:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>  wrote:
>> Dean Stephens schrieb:
>>
 Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it
 a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member
 of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty
 strong perception that it is.

>>> Why? How? Exactly what sort of conflicting interest is supposed to be
>>> present?
>> I think in Comrel vs. Council is not a conflict of interest, but rather
>> throwing the appeals process off balance. Can you expect someone to neutrally
>> review material and actions (question the authenticity of evidence, identify
>> potential misconduct, etc.) that they themselves used to build the case
>> against the reprimanded?
>>
> I hope that Comrel does not consider it their main duty to build cases
> against community members.  They're supposed to investigate, mediate,
> and take action if necessary.  They aren't prosecutors.
>
Do you have evidence either to support or contradict your case? TIA...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
 wrote:
> Dean Stephens schrieb:
>
>>> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it
>>> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member
>>> of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty
>>> strong perception that it is.
>>>
>> Why? How? Exactly what sort of conflicting interest is supposed to be
>> present?
>
> I think in Comrel vs. Council is not a conflict of interest, but rather
> throwing the appeals process off balance. Can you expect someone to neutrally
> review material and actions (question the authenticity of evidence, identify
> potential misconduct, etc.) that they themselves used to build the case
> against the reprimanded?
>

I hope that Comrel does not consider it their main duty to build cases
against community members.  They're supposed to investigate, mediate,
and take action if necessary.  They aren't prosecutors.

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:

> Don't vote for that person then? Why would we need a general rule
> restricting voters from electing any specific candidate?

For the same reason why governing bodies sometimes restrict accumulation of
mandates (and have term limits etc.). Of course the electorate can just vote
for another person, but that is not the point.

In the case of Gentoo, if one body is supposed to supervise the other,
holding positions in both can lead to problems. While this may be ok if one
of them is small and limited in scope, the more powerful both are the more
problematic it gets.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Dean Stephens schrieb:

>> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it
>> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member
>> of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty
>> strong perception that it is.
>>
> Why? How? Exactly what sort of conflicting interest is supposed to be
> present?

I think in Comrel vs. Council is not a conflict of interest, but rather
throwing the appeals process off balance. Can you expect someone to neutrally
review material and actions (question the authenticity of evidence, identify
potential misconduct, etc.) that they themselves used to build the case
against the reprimanded?

Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Dean Stephens schrieb:
>> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary action against
>> non-members, which there is no recourse against except appeal to the Council.
>>
> At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific
> channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki.

Council, QA and Comrel are effectively the governing bodies of Gentoo,
enacting and/or enforcing project-wide policy on their own accord. The others
that you mention have only direct power in a very limited area.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn