From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF66E138334 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:55:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5F63E093E; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78FECE093D for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from symphony.aura-online.co.uk (154.189.187.81.in-addr.arpa [81.187.189.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chewi) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6D1F34B45F; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 10:55:36 +0100 From: James Le Cuirot To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-project , undertakers , comrel Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy Message-ID: <20190921105536.2764e1e6@symphony.aura-online.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> References: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/ntOXt3sCklHgzlgbJBh8kqs"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Archives-Salt: 495d8cd2-2829-454e-8d32-fa57abb5c300 X-Archives-Hash: 23a24b803455d398e2d3d98d4372605e --Sig_/ntOXt3sCklHgzlgbJBh8kqs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:01:54 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > Hi, everyone. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > Full proposed policy, with rationale: >=20 > 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel. > The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council. >=20 > R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable to > make it the first appeal instance. >=20 >=20 > 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month before > planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third- > mail). >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended.=20 > If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired > throughout the appeal process. The appeal process is finished if > either: >=20 > a. the Council issues final decision, >=20 > b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days, >=20 > c. both sides agree not to appeal further. >=20 > R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring > (then maybe retiring again). >=20 >=20 > 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between > Undertakers and developers. It is not a replacement for communicating > with Undertakers. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > 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. --=20 James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer --Sig_/ntOXt3sCklHgzlgbJBh8kqs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEPxcZ3tkwcedKm2a8EiZBXQDdMTcFAl2F85gACgkQEiZBXQDd MTcxcw//ccBw8IDPKaOI64hhdJRTkoGQAJihrcmKgdbLu3J/WobTYjIlAPtHoCKi fVg498ceJcwflC1cTfuMmxDABJNGPaNHNcxd4GxD2WvxHv3w4X4Hse+cuK9FuBnE t3xBqvQdHIxiqYiQBmgSb4s++h1GozTF9u2j9jtWM+orrvyJG9xoUVWDgFDJSar0 m1CNdwj2RuZ/eYdKDIJTwDwOrO28EdHMhuoB56sZ/zJME7EtyUm7cm2aEipxPrv6 TDLDH38cwlYT9vBJrK4uVETSzAL3TCxJa8YTQRjNNJypz2rfhPuI5164/1CbjqEr T7BeJ/p+ymyrhqlkWtaz0auvda5ULYPF1EkWj7gG6X4hW5qFYHOy7suIt1v9hAZl 4dqo8dezTu5eORS0ZEEEOMi0lJ74jO8JBWxB4U1rv7HiSTIrqk9mVQi4lihVSmkj USmKhch2scecQaI/+/mqUHCdiFtsTWt4Mk66BzGz4aJTIvevwHhbkpXMdYwY+c7+ YX9nQPlU3ZvMqNAtMZ8ZMSxpQcxhjIOHuoeX9yZNlogN2f6F8irn8hgOwlUjoSYd 3W7tup0+DBJeEEvyqJJF3YcdrZRXSJQK+U1ncQlf9u8kI794SvDIwgKz9AG6lTxo hhERymNGL4sC5USVQwuMH87gdRggOlajbbkSqp03OZ/x0hky6Mo= =yWew -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ntOXt3sCklHgzlgbJBh8kqs--