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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3074 bytes --]

On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2019.09.21 08:01, Michał Górny 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?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> > 
> > 
> 
> Michał,
> 
> Looks good. It also looks like the standard process so does it
> need to be documented explicitly on the Undertakers page? 
> 

Given that one person already asked about it, I supposed it does.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]