[gentoo-dev] Ombudsman GLEP, second pass

[gentoo-dev] Ombudsman GLEP, second pass

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3636 bytes --]

Okay, It's been about a week since I sent my Ombudsman GLEP out for
comments, so it's time to summarize the comments so far.  The original
GLEP may be found at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep.  So far there
have been comments only by tberman, klieber and, indirectly, seemant. 
(For the existing thread, see 
http://news.gmane.org/onethread.php?group=gmane.linux.gentoo.devel&root=%3C1057613345.3127.3.camel%40localhost%3E.


Kurt noticed that the GLEP fails to accurately document the role of the
ombudsman, which is to "mediate" disputes, not "settle" them.  The
ombudsman has no actual power other than persuasion; his or her role is
to facilitate finding common ground through discussions and
negotiations.  

Kurt asked about when it is appropriate to use the ombudsman, to which I
replied that the ombudsman's services may be used at any time simply by
sending an e-mail to ombudsman@gentoo.org.  I gave examples of
user-developer and developer-developer conflicts that might occur, and
suggested that the role of the ombudsman is first to listen, and then to
try to mediate.

Kurt also addressed the issue of logging or making public disputes, to
which I suggested that disputes should be logged, but not public unless
all parties wish it to be so.  (I also clarified that the ombudsman's
role is to handle interpersonal disputes, not policy disputes.)

From tberman we have the helpful suggestion that the ombudsman should
rotate every 3-to-6 months, with the backup ombudsman taking over from
the current ombudsman.  Todd also suggested g2boojum and absinthe as the
first ombudsman and backup omudsman, respectively.  I have mixed
feelings on the idea of rotation.  I agree that for an ombudsman
position to be effective the ombudsman has to be considered impartial
(and by having a backup one can avoid most conflicts of interest), but
I'm not sure that regular rotations actually help that cause.  If we
should find a dev who's already well regarded as being impartial,
keeping that dev as an ombudsman may be more useful.

Kurt also had a number of worries about the ombudsman proposal. 
Summarizing, he feels that the ombudsman is likely to get overwhelmed,
that having the position encourages whining more than fixing problems,
and that ideally the ombudsman should really be listening to people and
then proposing big-picture fixes.  After a lot of reflection, I think
Kurt may be correct, but that none of his worries are actually _bad_
things.  If the ombudsman gets overwhelmed, then that _is_ a sign that
things need to be fixed, and I have no problem adding to the GLEP a
section documenting that one of the roles of the omubudsman is to look
for trends in interpersonal conflicts and work on finding more global
solutions.  As for encouraging whining, I still tend to think that the
requirement that the person with a complaint submit a written complaint
to the ombudsman will help to set the bar high enough that most of the
disputes will be more than whining.  Assuming that nobody objects, I'll
add a comment to the GLEP stating that e-mails to the ombudsman may be
rejected outright if they are not well-written or they contain an excess
of vitriol or abuse.

Seemant has proposed an ombudsman subproject to the devrel project
(http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel), so if people have comments on
this proposal it would be very helpful to make them soon.  Please feel
free to reply to this message (to gentoo-dev@gentoo.org), and I'll
cheerfully put together another summary if needed.

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Ombudsman GLEP, second pass

[Jay Pfeifer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

OK - I see the ombudsman as being valuable to our project. However, since the 
persons acting as an ombudsman do not truly have authority for resolving the 
issue @ hand and are just working as a mediator (not arbiter) to impartially 
investigate and potentially by wisdom settle disputes - I suggest we append 
the glep to state issues that cannot be resolved by using an ombudsman be 
lifted to the tlps for direction on how to proceed. Then we as tlps can make 
a decision. While I do not see this as a frequent happening (becoming some 
burden to the tlps), ultimately someone has to be accountable and make a 
decision when something cannot be handled by the ombudsman for whatever 
sundry reason.

Jay

On Sunday 13 July 2003 06:48 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Okay, It's been about a week since I sent my Ombudsman GLEP out for
> comments, so it's time to summarize the comments so far.  The original
> GLEP may be found at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep.  So far there
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/EgCce5xY3v0FhjgRAti9AJ4z3wd5GEBcz6Se90wCw+kDeIXfQwCfbiIf
vULqL1+mijrqPBtvMXBYQ8E=
=k675
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list