On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:59:45PM +0200, 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.
>

[snip]

> 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.
> 

People will always find excuses. It is the easiest way to avoid
confrontation, be lazy, and "play the sympathy card."

> As I said, the problem is that ban is the kind of punishment that harms
> users more than misbehaving developers.  While it might make sense to
> issue short bans to let people cool down (this is proctors' area), bans
> to punish misbehavior block good actions as much as bad.
> 

Agreed. Users do lose out especially when the developer is responsible
for "high profile" packages.

> 
> Improvement-targeted disciplinary actions
> =========================================
> The key point in my proposal is to remove temporary bans from ComRel/QA
> disciplinary actions entirely.  Instead, we should focus on giving
> developers specific 'improvement' tasks.
> 

Yes! I would also explain this as constructive criticism from a
"sanctioned" body that reports directly to the council. As long as the
QA team maintains professionalism then this approach works really well.
Document the exchanges on restricted bugs as well.

> For example, if a developer keeps committing broken ebuilds without
> testing them properly, he is asked to fix the tests in some of these
> pacakges.  If a developer keeps making bad commit messages, he is
> required to start using better commit messages.  If a developer insults
> somebody else, he's asked to apologize and make amends.  No temporary
> ban, just a request to do something in limited time.
> 

Yes! Of course, some individuals will claim their time is precious and
they cannot meet X timeline. If this is the case, I would propose that
one *short* extension be given. Beyond that, the proceedings continue.

> 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.
> 

Yup! These things aren't hard. I myself have had interactions with QA
and find the exchanges very simple:

QA: "Please abide by these rules/regulations so we do not have to take
this further"

Me: "Cool, will do, thanks"

Problem solved. Anything beyond this, IMHO, is someone just trying to
"buck" the system or cause strife.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron