[gentoo-project] Re: [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy

[James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2863 bytes --]

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:01:54 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi, everyone.
> 
> Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure
> for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to our
> wiki page.
> 
> TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution (or
> post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance,
> and Council being the second.
> 
> 
> Full proposed policy, with rationale:
> 
> 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel.
> The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council.
> 
> R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable to
> make it the first appeal instance.
> 
> 
> 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month before
> planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third-
> mail).
> 
> R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would
> not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity).  Undertakers
> recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to
> confirm that someone's retirement is still pending.
> 
> 
> 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. 
> If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired
> throughout the appeal process.  The appeal process is finished if
> either:
> 
>   a. the Council issues final decision,
> 
>   b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days,
> 
>   c. both sides agree not to appeal further.
> 
> R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring
> (then maybe retiring again).
> 
> 
> 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between
> Undertakers and developers.  It is not a replacement for communicating
> with Undertakers.
> 
> R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to
> resolve it between us.  For example, if we missed something, then you
> should tell us rather than calling for appeal.  However, if we do
> disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is
> something you can appeal.
> 
> 
> 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on existing
> policies.  While it may influence future policies, those need to be
> carried out via appropriate policy making channels.
> 
> R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently.  If a policy
> needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review.
> 
> 
> WDYT?

Thanks for noticing this gap and addressing it. Given recent events
though, we must also review the wording used in regular undertaker
correspondence and also the process, if necessary, to avoid things
getting to this point in the first place.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]