[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-project
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...
From:       Rich Freeman <rich0 () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2016-09-30 17:47:21
Message-ID: CAGfcS_=3C8LUM96GGySqz48gVi4wXrBhG1Qhm=sr6dQwRqtDoA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:53 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 11:40:10 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I suspect I could dig up a comment to this effect in the distant past,
>> but I do think that detailing penalties/etc is a bad idea.  This isn't
>> because I have a problem with the penalties, but rather because we're
>> trying to rigidly codify things too much.  Then when we need to
>> deviate everybody is going to question that decision.
>
> I think it should be public record on the actions a public project has taken
> to drive people away. Dates, reasons, resolution, etc. It is simple
> accountability for an entity that has none. Comrel reports to no one, they do
> not give accountability reports to council etc. Council is completely unaware
> of most comrel actions to my knowledge.

This is actually the topic of my first -project email, but as I'll
elaborate on, there are pros and cons to making every personal dispute
a public record.

> It seems comrel acts at times without full votes from all members. That alone
> should be made know for accountability. Also I question the authority that any
> one can act without taking it to a vote. That sounds fraught with problems.

Well, it sounds like you were offered the opportunity to call for a
vote of all members.  You're certainly allowed to appeal to the
Council (that's in black and white on our policies).  I won't argue
that there are other ways of potentially making Comrel more
accountable/etc which I'm sure will be other topics that come up on
-project, but you haven't actually exhausted the mechanisms already at
your disposal.  Part of the reason that Comrel actions can be appealed
to the Council is because Comrel is a fairly closed body that isn't
very transparent, and the Council is an elected body that any
developer can potentially join, and ultimately Council members have to
answer to the community for their actions.  That said, appeals to the
Council are also not public, and again that is something we can
discuss on a separate thread but that carries the same sorts of pros
and cons.

I don't think it is generally helpful when people go to the lists/etc
with complaints about how their cases are handled, but strictly
speaking we don't really do anything to try to censor such activities.
The reason I think it is unhelpful is that it tends to burn bridges,
and you're taking something that was kept private in part for your own
benefit and turning it into a public issue.  However, as unpleasant as
I at least personally find it, I know I'm accountable to the
developers for any decisions I do make in appeal/etc (they don't even
need a reason at all to not vote for me).

>
>> I don't have an issue with Comrel documenting the penalties it
>> generally applies or the guidelines it follows so that things are
>> transparent.  I just don't think they should be codified into
>> something as high-level as a CoC where they're hard to change.
>
> There are a few problems with such. It tries to apply general rules to
> situations rather than taking them on a case by case basis. Even the Laws in
> the US do not have set penalties, it is up to the judge.

If only that were true, but mandatory sentencing guidelines are
actually a subject of controversy in the US.  :)  But, no argument on
your actual point.

>
> I have never had a warning from Comrel, just action. There is no documentation
> of any formal warning being issued to me ever. Not via email, on bug, etc.
>

So, I can't comment on your specific case largely because I'm not even
privy to the details (I would be if you appealed, but then I'd be even
more reluctant to comment in public as I'd have a duty to keep those
details confidential).

However, I think one issue with Comrel is that they're probably
overworked just like a lot of other Gentoo projects, and that probably
makes them more prone to not dotting all the i's.  That would merit
its own thread, but it is a big challenge because it isn't good for
people to not be given an opportunity to fix their mistakes, and it
also isn't good for problems to be ignored because Comrel members
don't feel like going through all the effort of dealing with them.  We
need a reasonable process that can be done efficiently.

I also wouldn't say that every problem merits a warning.  To pick an
extreme example, if somebody is caught committing rootkits into
packages, I don't think we need to give them a warning before pulling
their commit access (I'm sure this is something all our users will be
thankful for).  On the other hand, if somebody makes a minor change to
an eclass without an RFC on -dev that probably merits more leeway.
Again, I can't speak to whatever your specific issues were.

> What is referenced in my bug as a warning is a unofficial comment on -nfp from a
> devrel member. Who just happened to be one of the ones harassing me and
> responsible for me stepping down as a Trustee. Which is also in part why I
> never respected devrels actions back then. There was an obvious conflict of
> interest, with members of devrel being the ones who had issues with me, not
> others....

And this is another reason that appeals to Council are allowed.  We do
generally recuse ourselves when we have personal conflicts of
interest, and our Comrel members tend to recuse themselves
automatically (which personally I think is unnecessary, but it is a
bit moot as it is their right to recuse themselves if they have
concerns and it isn't like I can force them to vote).  So, at present
Council appeals are basically a completely independent evaluation of
the issue.

However, I will say that in general if somebody is going to appeal to
the Council they're better off making their case on how they are
demonstrating that they intend to be a good member of the community,
and not on whether we ought to be concerned with such matters in the
first place.  Speaking personally I would certainly evaluate the
information I have independently, but I'm going to be asking myself
whether this is somebody who is going to work well with the rest of
the community.  No comrel action is truly permanent, if the situation
or the people involve change people can rejoin Gentoo, and there are
several former developers who didn't leave entirely by their own
choice but they're still a part of the larger community and some
contribute to fairly important projects.  Sometimes things just work
out better that way, and maybe in some cases it makes sense for them
to return.  I think we're all interested in facilitating contributions
from devs and non-devs alike, and of course we want people to be
treated fairly.

-- 
Rich


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]