From: Joonas Niilola <juippis@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 17:21:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f5ce6280-0e05-ffda-9232-6b9312961dc9@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ced7d1a2a5133aca2521b7126b33f8eaa5bd0b2.camel@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]
On 7/24/20 4:59 PM, 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.
Sometimes I wish I was banned, so I could keep a two week vacation from
any Gentoo related work with good conscience. It's getting pretty
stressful with ever-increasing checks, and you need to reserve ~30
minutes to get a clean CI run after anything you've committed.
Of course these checks assure a much better user experience, but it's
mentally straining on this end.
And no, QA is not a monster. I'm not aware of any unjustified bans.
> 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.
What if this genuinely happened:
> 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.
>
I'm fine with your solution, retiring the dev if they refuse to
co-operate. However I'd like to see a full pseudo-example here what
happens before the retirement by Comrel/QA. A list of all steps. And by
this time, I'd say to have 1 strike before retirement, with a cooldown
of say 1-2 years. Just to eradicate any human errors from the process,
and I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance.
(Does this need to be GLEPd)?
-- juippis
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 642 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-24 14:22 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 [this message]
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
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=f5ce6280-0e05-ffda-9232-6b9312961dc9@gentoo.org \
--to=juippis@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