From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-9072-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> 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 CE9BB138334 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61C57E08BE; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:02:01 +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 EB5F2E089E for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:02:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (c134-66.icpnet.pl [85.221.134.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B784534B43A; Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:01:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= <mgorny@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> Cc: undertakers <undertakers@gentoo.org>, comrel <comrel@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:01:54 +0200 Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-O2HINpFQi4UguFkgY5Md" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org> 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 X-Archives-Salt: 82828ef8-cdcf-4ad0-b1f1-e026e95b8904 X-Archives-Hash: 458458bd3cf38067c2fbd35b33b26d2a --=-O2HINpFQi4UguFkgY5Md Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 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? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-O2HINpFQi4UguFkgY5Md Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl2FyuJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA786ggA0YEMZylpKs8Gn34o9jxcj5roJod8SIG99jv5W1xcPVdnAy3k34y0BVjr F6dzGdkiI19rEEqQkthJoqd6xM3vVG/y5jomJI0NRSAc00anCviz/I1JHdWS9hY1 2P5O1DoxWTSvYsH1KzRdrqMgnzkEyxLm45nSzwC4JJj5J1PskulTKLY6gTcINW5c 2TJhe3klbL/uX9R9lctzxhybg/3+hoigf6S69fp1WRYGISVoTS48w5JqqNhVdkWV /HJw1S7IxGKSUwYaN1Uvif3sDXaOM0+yVI6QNqbJLzjdBiHmzjSNHKizcv2hr0el Fml1mG3VLLG6Y1+KwJc92rdWPth7Bw== =JS5l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-O2HINpFQi4UguFkgY5Md--