[gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Michael Tindal]

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

As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for
how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a
problem like this.

While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the
proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame.
So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before
the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this.

This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for
investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process
more transparent.  This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly
splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation
was handled happens again.

The current proposal can be found here:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt

I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very
professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are
relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone
wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so).

Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to
make them more explicit:

  - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
public).  Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
error in that regard.

  - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing
so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision.  Althoug the
terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a
rightful addendum.

  - Evidence used must have the supporting context available.  This
might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc.  This is to
ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action
against a developer.

If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to
the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first
before changing the wording on the proposal.

Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0
rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI=
=6UDC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Ferris McCormick]

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

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:

[Introductory material omitted]

>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt
>
> I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very
> professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are
> relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone
> wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so).
>

Please do.

> Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to
> make them more explicit:
>
>  - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
> public).  Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
> error in that regard.
>
Good point.  For the same reason a judge cannot reasonably hear an appeal 
of a decision the judge has participated in, an investigator cannot 
reasonably judge the evidence he himself has gathered.

>  - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing
> so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision.  Althoug the
> terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a
> rightful addendum.
>

That's better than the way I put it.

>  - Evidence used must have the supporting context available.  This
> might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc.  This is to
> ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action
> against a developer.
>

This is pretty analogous to the hearsay rule used in the legal system (at 
least in intent).  It enhances the confidence you have in the evidence's 
reliability, and at the same time presents somethint concrete to 
substantiate or rebut.

> If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to
> the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first
> before changing the wording on the proposal.
>
> Mike

I think these are all on target, and should be included.

Great work.

Regards,
Ferris
- --
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCpOM3Qa6M3+I///cRApNOAKCssjpgDzjaXXm6ASrk+RGb5oEkfQCgtn+Z
XPAaxVDfMW3W3whPHyjG4hE=
=+8M8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Deedra Waters]

Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the
investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also
think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of
managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:

> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0500
> From: Michael Tindal <urilith@gentoo.org>
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org
> To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As many of you reading -core are aware, I have written up a proposal for
> how to effectively handle devrel's procedures in the future to avoid a
> problem like this.
>
> While I would have loved to be at the meeting tomorrow to discuss the
> proposal in greater detail, I will be working during that time frame.
> So I'm posting the proposal here to generate some discussion here before
> the meeting so hopefully everyone can understand why I wrote this.
>
> This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for
> investigation and action taking, and making the decision making process
> more transparent.  This does not take the power away from devrel, mearly
> splits it within devrel to ensure that an outcry over how the situation
> was handled happens again.
>
> The current proposal can be found here:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt
>
> I contacted ciaranm with this proposal to get his input, and in a very
> professional manner he pointed out some shortcomings that I feel are
> relevant and need to be addressed (I will forward these emails if anyone
> wishes if/when I receive his permission to do so).
>
> Some of these points should be implicit, but I guess it makes sense to
> make them more explicit:
>
>   - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
> public).  Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
> error in that regard.
>
>   - Management should not be allowed to sit on either board, since doing
> so inhibits their ability to properly appeal a decision.  Althoug the
> terms in the proposal are not this stringent, I do feel this is a
> rightful addendum.
>
>   - Evidence used must have the supporting context available.  This
> might include the relevant forum posts, IRC logs, etc.  This is to
> ensure that a misunderstanding does not result in unreasonable action
> against a developer.
>
> If the people here agree with any of these points, I will add them to
> the proposal as necessary, but I felt it worthy of discussing them first
> before changing the wording on the proposal.
>
> Mike
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCpNsOrIsAlMe2sSkRArd0AKCOB14GWL8xgYbHGvmcKtrZfkoV6gCdGHc0
> rWQGArIGZWNSQlrW6/2SHbI=
> =6UDC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1445 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 17:07 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the
> investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also
> think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of
> managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be.
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:
> 
Realistically, there might not be a choice.  That depends on the
composition of devrel, of course, and if the population count forces
managers to be investigators, then so be it.

It's better not, however.  Ideally, an appeals panel should work only
from the record before it and the arguments made by the parties
involved.  Personally, if I were on an appeals panel hearing a case I
had previously investigated, I'd have trouble putting aside opinions I
had formed during the appeals process (but I emphasise this is related
to my own personal makeup).

If nothing else, the ultimate outcome of any case decided on appeal
would look more legitimate if investigation, adjudication, and appeal
were handled by separate bodies.

Or, maybe I'm just being to legalistic here?

> 
> -- 
> Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
> dmwaters@gentoo.org
> Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
> 
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc)

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

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]

Ferris McCormick wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 08:26:23AM EDT]
> Personally, if I were on an appeals panel hearing a case I
> had previously investigated, I'd have trouble putting aside opinions I
> had formed during the appeals process (but I emphasise this is related
> to my own personal makeup).

It's not just your personal makeup.  It's human nature.  Some people
are better at compartmentalizing than others, but anybody would be
affected to some extent by bias formed during investigation.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Deedra Waters]

I agree with you, but i suspect that we're going to end up with at least
1 or 2 managers that will end up being investigators. Over the past year
I've tried to bring on people who aren't managers at grant's suggestion
before, but that's not always easy, and depending on which way the
metastructure stuff goes, we could just as easily end up with more.
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Ferris McCormick wrote:

> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:26:23 +0000
> From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org>
> Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org
> To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal
>
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 17:07 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the
> > investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also
> > think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of
> > managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be.
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote:
> >
> Realistically, there might not be a choice.  That depends on the
> composition of devrel, of course, and if the population count forces
> managers to be investigators, then so be it.
>
> It's better not, however.  Ideally, an appeals panel should work only
> from the record before it and the arguments made by the parties
> involved.  Personally, if I were on an appeals panel hearing a case I
> had previously investigated, I'd have trouble putting aside opinions I
> had formed during the appeals process (but I emphasise this is related
> to my own personal makeup).
>
> If nothing else, the ultimate outcome of any case decided on appeal
> would look more legitimate if investigation, adjudication, and appeal
> were handled by separate bodies.
>
> Or, maybe I'm just being to legalistic here?
>
> >
> > --
> > Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
> > dmwaters@gentoo.org
> > Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
> >
> Regards,
> Ferris
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Michael Tindal wrote:
>   - Members of the Investigative Subproject should not be members of the
> Judicial Subproject to ensure the capcities remain seperated, and
> intimate knowledge gained by the investigative subproject (and therefore
> private) cannot be used to make decision (which requires the evidence be
> public).  Making this distinction explicit reduces the chance for human
> error in that regard.

One of the problems you'll run into here is that there just aren't
enough people who are interested in doing this to fill up a reasonable
number of spots on two mutually exclusive panels.

Do you have any ideas on how to remedy this?

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCpOuVXVaO67S1rtsRAmiQAKDDbQbIpvXnd9bxccf7+Di4seJa/wCgrIxe
hiKba4NLIYYcsLirDjWO/hU=
=plUJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal

[Olivier Fisette]

On Monday, 6 June 2005 07:23 pm, Michael Tindal wrote:
> This proposal is meant to clarify the devrel procedures for
> investigation and action taking, and making the decision
> making process more transparent.  This does not take the power
> away from devrel, mearly splits it within devrel to ensure
> that an outcry over how the situation was handled happens
> again.
>
> The current proposal can be found here:
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt

I really like this. The only omission I can see is what the 
Investigation subproject members should do if they believe a 
developer is likely to be a short-term important danger for the 
project.

I think in this case investigators should be allowed to bypass 
the Judiciary subproject and ask Infra to immediately suspend 
the developer's access to relevant portions of our 
infrastructure. Devrel should then immediately disclose this 
decision to the public (developer base). To continue the "real 
life analogy", this is a bit like law enforcement agencies 
keeping people in custody before they are formaly accused 
because they could be a danger to society.

Thanks for your work,

-- 
Olivier Fisette (ribosome)
Gentoo Linux Developer
-- 
gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list