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 5A167138334 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F9CCE0849; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:26:47 +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 48FEFE0845 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:26:47 +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 934BF34B68E; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <443f0e87f4fe579891d23809d46acbd6caf14bb8.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:26:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-I6cDZvrp/F85WhBPFJHh" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 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 X-Archives-Salt: 377f9490-1589-42b0-b140-3d485ed26ff8 X-Archives-Hash: da5089a90bf8f091a08638970349f667 --=-I6cDZvrp/F85WhBPFJHh Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2019.09.21 08:01, 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).=20 > > 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? > >=20 > > --=20 > > Best regards, > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Micha=C5=82, >=20 > Looks good. It also looks like the standard process so does it > need to be documented explicitly on the Undertakers page?=20 >=20 Given that one person already asked about it, I supposed it does. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-I6cDZvrp/F85WhBPFJHh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl2PQ3FfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA7U5wf/dINktUP5XrlVaJzVsGwndSt5XJfCYqOUiutEVqNVtUA51wpftrdGS7Mq fedT332OJYyYM8i4OYlNmMDlsIuagNEX458x+IuMyKlUovdQ2I//qIN/qpGI7Mq1 7/MGO1J7HUO1x2uBfp9x0HZqyBJ/Gb8Fz+FfNPv8ga04VQHeLcekF1j1vyxwqh68 G0o8qiOpGLzgfJ1E7mCtDrTSFmcojjafP+gh3eHOfayMvSet5G/eq8Zgb0namESB 8bPOhBVTLfS0EYFSziGjzngwvGYqtWjlAc8YUhIx9RMuOMWi2ofU0Su8YIl/uWfd vMzaAi6+pQRUyIaxi6hypaITj+bleQ== =oAbx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-I6cDZvrp/F85WhBPFJHh--