From: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:15:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200724161553.GA10049@bubba> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ced7d1a2a5133aca2521b7126b33f8eaa5bd0b2.camel@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3267 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:59:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: the current punishment-based disciplinary (ComRel/QA) model
> doesn't work very well. Most of the time it is tedious and results
> in a ban that doesn't solve anything, and effectively ends up being
> harmful to users (as a third party). I would like to discuss replacing
> it with a model that focuses on improvement and making amends.
>
[snip]
> QA: developer X, please follow the standards.
> [silence]
> QA: developer X, ping.
> [silence]
> QA: developer X, please answer or else...
> [silence]
> QA: developer X, we issue official warning.
> [*shrug*]
> <a few warnings later>
> QA: we issue 14 day ban for developer X.
> dev X: bad QA! I never got any warnings! They didn't really try to
> reach out! [to users] I'm sorry, this guy has banned me so I can't bump
> Y, it's all their fault.
>
People will always find excuses. It is the easiest way to avoid
confrontation, be lazy, and "play the sympathy card."
> As I said, the problem is that ban is the kind of punishment that harms
> users more than misbehaving developers. While it might make sense to
> issue short bans to let people cool down (this is proctors' area), bans
> to punish misbehavior block good actions as much as bad.
>
Agreed. Users do lose out especially when the developer is responsible
for "high profile" packages.
>
> Improvement-targeted disciplinary actions
> =========================================
> The key point in my proposal is to remove temporary bans from ComRel/QA
> disciplinary actions entirely. Instead, we should focus on giving
> developers specific 'improvement' tasks.
>
Yes! I would also explain this as constructive criticism from a
"sanctioned" body that reports directly to the council. As long as the
QA team maintains professionalism then this approach works really well.
Document the exchanges on restricted bugs as well.
> For example, if a developer keeps committing broken ebuilds without
> testing them properly, he is asked to fix the tests in some of these
> pacakges. If a developer keeps making bad commit messages, he is
> required to start using better commit messages. If a developer insults
> somebody else, he's asked to apologize and make amends. No temporary
> ban, just a request to do something in limited time.
>
Yes! Of course, some individuals will claim their time is precious and
they cannot meet X timeline. If this is the case, I would propose that
one *short* extension be given. Beyond that, the proceedings continue.
> Now, if the developer deliberately refuses to make amends, then I think
> we shouldn't play cat-and-mouse any longer and immediately go for
> retirement. Of course, with possibility of appeal to the Council
> and the usual rights but without the 'N bans' game before it.
>
Yup! These things aren't hard. I myself have had interactions with QA
and find the exchanges very simple:
QA: "Please abide by these rules/regulations so we do not have to take
this further"
Me: "Cool, will do, thanks"
Problem solved. Anything beyond this, IMHO, is someone just trying to
"buck" the system or cause strife.
--
Cheers,
Aaron
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-24 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-24 13:59 [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans) Michał Górny
2020-07-24 14:21 ` Joonas Niilola
2020-07-24 20:22 ` Michał Górny
2020-07-27 7:27 ` Joonas Niilola
2020-07-27 7:34 ` Michał Górny
2020-07-24 16:15 ` Aaron Bauman [this message]
2020-07-25 10:01 ` Lars Wendler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200724161553.GA10049@bubba \
--to=bman@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox