[gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12527 bytes --]

This has been a long time coming. I have purposely held back such a post for 
many years. I have not been on any Gentoo related mailing list since 2008. Not 
to dredge up the past which has some what haunted me and plagued my efforts to 
return on numerous occasions over many years.

For a brief recap;

In 2008 days after stepping down as a Gentoo Foundation Trustee, due to 
harassment[1] 8/27/08. I made a post on the Gentoo -nfp mailing list and got a 
bit unruly[2] 9/2/08. Which lead to a single developer complaining to devrel 
at the time. I was banned from posting to the -nfp list, and I circumvented 
that ban with a single post[3] 9/2/08. Which about a week later lead devrel to 
decide to suspend me as a developer, prevent commits for a 1 week period of 
time[4]. I saw such as unproductive, penalization, and insulting given what 
had taken place with me stepping down as a Trustee and no respect for any 
efforts. I elected to resign against the advice of some saying remain.

This suspension/retirement went from preventing commits for 1 week, to over 8 
years. In that time Java on Gentoo has been HEAVILY neglected and needs LOTS 
of work. Far more than any one individual can do on their own. I have made 
efforts to contribute over the years not just in Java but in other areas. 
Proxy maintaining is fraught with problems, it wastes others time, it slows 
things down and is far from ideal for anything but minor contributions. Not 
for large contributions over periods of time. Even now I have open PRs on 
Github[5] and would have many more. I have lots of updates in my own overlay 
not in tree[6].

Which I have Copyright most stuff in my overlay to my business Obsidian-
Studios, Inc. per the advise of another Gentoo Developer. I rather not work in 
my own overlay, but its the only way I can work productively. But it does not 
fix the main tree, benefit others, and I have to work around issues in the main 
tree I cannot fix directly. The copyright is because in ways I feel Gentoo 
wants my work and effort but not me. Since I cannot commit directly, copyright 
is the only way I can get credit for my efforts.

There has been some effort to get Java current on Gentoo in 2015 and 2016, but 
sadly looks like it will be returning to very little happening again. It was 
mostly chewi/James Le Cuirot, and also monsieurp/Patrice Clement updating 
JDK/JRE and some packages. While chewi has been around Gentoo Java for some 
time, he does not really use any of that stuff, not for work or personal. I 
believe that is also the case with monsieurp. Therefore it is of no surprise 
that at least chewi is looking to move on to other areas of the tree like 
Games. chewi is not leaving java entirely but time and contributions have 
fallen off and likely to continue. Chewi has not stepped down as Java Team 
Lead, but that is likely coming. Who will be the replacement? Who will help 
further Gentoo Java?

It is quite frustrating to see things neglected. It is frustrating to see no 
one working on things I would be working on. It is even more frustrating to 
have others prevent my contributions and efforts spanning an ~8 year period, 
essentially just holding Gentoo back. Hoping someone someday might come along. 
But as technology is outdated, Gentoo Java packages being old, the chance of 
someone coming along to update all the old stuff diminishes every day. No one 
has come in years, and does not seem like anyone is coming. Much less actually 
getting a Java Team again and having a few active devs making commits and 
furthering things daily.

I have a paper weight on my desk with a famous quote most have heard, that I 
tend to live by.

"Do Something! Lead, follow, or get of the way!"

Over the years I have felt that devrel/comrel has just gotten in the way. They 
have not helped me return, nor made that process any better. I feel at times 
they have made the process more difficult than they do for others. My returning 
developer attempts took more time in review and other than when I first became 
a dev and knew less. That has never made any sense to me. It should take MUCH 
less to process a returning dev than a new developer. Returning developers 
should be welcomed, as anyone seeking to contribute.

Sadly Gentoo has developed a culture over the years of policing and driving 
away talent and people for the sake of the project. Which I strongly feel has 
been the biggest problem for Gentoo. Actions taken to protect Gentoo, 
development, developers, and the community, has cause great harm to Gentoo. 
Gentoo has more policies on behavior, punishment, etc than most any other 
project and/or distribution. I simply cannot find anything close to what Gentoo 
has in place. I believe it is why Gentoo has always had problems with total 
number of developers and active developers beyond normal attrition.

When it comes to Volunteer effort, I do not feel anyone should be driven away 
for any reason. I believe everyone has something to contribute on any level. I 
do not believe policing or enforcing behavior or other social policies really 
have that much benefit. In fact most of the greatest things come out of a chaos 
not harmony. People will not stop to watch a boring discussion. They will stop 
to watch a fight and maybe participate. At the moment people are not paying 
attention to Gentoo. News articles are few and far between, most companies 
seem to be moving away from Gentoo rather than to Gentoo.

Given the amount of work to be done, that there is no one doing it, and that I 
am willing to do the work. I do not appreciate people getting involved in that 
process that are not seeking to help. Fine if I cannot further Gentoo, but get 
someone else who will. If you cannot, then stop preventing me from furthering 
things either. I am not just talking Gentoo Java, though the contributions 
there would be substantial if not tremendous. I did maintain packages else 
where in Gentoo, that have not had a maintainer since I left in 2008.

Back to my saying, do something!

What bothers me even more at times, is the "gatekeepers" comrel/recruiting 
have little to no oversight in Gentoo. Sure I could have appealed to the 
council over the years, but I do not feel the council is aware of 
comrel/recruiting actions. Comrel/recruting control who can get into Gentoo, 
and there is little to no qualification to be part of comrel. Why such a team 
or project need exist I have long questioned. They tend to not contribute much 
technically and if anything drive away technical talent they are not seeking 
to replace. Not to mention comments they make such as this on my developer[7] 
bug I do not feel should be publicaly made about ANYONE. Such comments can 
effect a persons professional career and that is simply not right.

With regard to my behavior. While some can make a argument, based on 
reinforce-able facts showing my unruly behavior. What they will have a hard 
time proving, is that I get unruly when it comes to work related matters. I 
never had any issue in Gentoo with anyone I actively worked with. The only 
issues even in the past came from discussing foundation matters. Which I have 
avoided since 2008, as any on list discussion etc. I never wanted to make this 
issue bigger than it was. I just bitched on my bug, and maybe on occasion in 
some IRC channels. That is hardly enough to justify preventing me from 
becoming a Gentoo Developer again. Or preventing all the work on Gentoo Java, 
I have done, will do, and others will not and have no in years.

I think this would be like my 5th attempt to return to Gentoo as a Gentoo 
Developer since 2008. I do not know of anyone who has tried to return so many 
times. Or has been treated as I have been over the years. Which every action 
devrel/comrel has done against me was NOT according to policy. That includes 
kicking me from comrel in 2015, with logs on my bug. That goes directly 
against their policies online about warning etc. Bans put in place back in 
2008 where never removed.

Based on treatment, inability to follow their own policies and rules, the 
negative effect on Gentoo as a whole over the years. I really have little 
respect for the entire concept of comrel/devrel on Gentoo. I do not believe 
that is of any benefit to Gentoo and is 100% responsible for the demise of 
Gentoo. Not insulting any current or past efforts. But Gentoo has fallen so 
hard, it has become a very obscure distro rather than a mainstream distro.

Gentoo should play a crucial role in FOSS development as it once did. Having 
the latest and greatest of all packages, interacting with each other, 
breaking, creating patches, submitting those to upstreams, and helping move 
FOSS forward as a whole. Rather than thing in Gentoo now being behind Debian.

I will conclude with this. Everything comrel seeks to prevent with regard to 
behavior can continue to occur if someone was not a developer. I could be 
unruly just the same on IRC, mailing lists, etc. I could create new accounts 
to circumvent any policing. The whole thing is quite stupid really. Think 
about it yourself. Someone can be just as harmful to Gentoo not being a 
developer as they could being a developer. We are not talking about broken 
code, or technical issues, just social.

Gentoo is NOT a social project but a technical one. Social issues should not 
prevent or have anything to do with technical matters. One should be judged 
solely on their contributions, and the rest really does not matter. What 
Comrel/devrel did was basically screw Java on Gentoo. Drove away talent that 
was not replaced and Java has just suffered on Gentoo since 2008, as have 
other areas. I am not saying I am the end all be all to all of Gentoo's 
problems. I was NOT the only person driven away by comrel/devrel.

I would like to return and get back to work as I have been wanting to since 
2008. Is anyone willing to help me further Gentoo? Or should we just live in 
the past, say I am no good for Gentoo, and let the status quo remain? I know 
not many care about Java on Gentoo. I am not asking you to do the work. I am 
simple asking for help to get others out of my way so I can do the work. Which 
one of the main things I would be working on is getting other developers on 
the Gentoo Java Team and getting a team again. I can assure if I am able to 
become a Gentoo developer again. I will do everything I can to get others to 
become Gentoo Developers and get things moving as much as I can.

Which one thing people ignore from the past. I make things happen. Like me or 
not, I stir the pot, get stuff cooking, and attract others for good or bad. I 
believe Gentoo could benefit from all that and it will be good. Me being a part 
of Gentoo is good for Gentoo. Please do not let a minority continue to effect 
the majority. I kept silent as long as I could hoping things would change. Now 
I am trying a different approach, but I rather commit than post...

I will go try once again to reach out to comrel/recruiting and see about 
starting that process. Having done quizzes now for like the 5th time or more. 
Not sure anyone has done the quizzes as many times now as I have. Its getting 
ridiculous :)

Rather than post on list or to me, voice your opinions to comrel. Or even 
better, Council destroy comrel and recruiting and revamp that entire process. 
Comrel/recruiting should no longer be holding Gentoo back, nor the gatekeepers 
for who can get in or not.

Thank you for your time!

P.S.
I feel this is best on -dev ML as this is more development related, as in 
preventing development, holding things back. However given I know others will 
object, I posted to -project. I may cross post for more eyes, given I assume 
more follow -dev than -project.


1. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/dc2f34046910b10e6ddcb8304410046b 
2. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/abfb3ade0108d4452dde85bf491827b9
3. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/7ef33e6807214587fdb825bebe590887
4. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c5
5. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pulls/wltjr
6. https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo
7. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
http://www.obsidian-studios.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> I will conclude with this. Everything comrel seeks to prevent with regard to
> behavior can continue to occur if someone was not a developer. I could be
> unruly just the same on IRC, mailing lists, etc. I could create new accounts
> to circumvent any policing. The whole thing is quite stupid really. Think
> about it yourself. Someone can be just as harmful to Gentoo not being a
> developer as they could being a developer. We are not talking about broken
> code, or technical issues, just social.

I can't really comment on any issues around your desire to become a
developer in particular, but generally speaking I can't say I agree
with this.  The comments below are not intended to speak directly to
anything you may have done in the past.  I certainly don't claim to
have special knowledge of what all the issues are, and if I did I
couldn't talk about them anyway.

First, you don't have to be a developer to contribute.

However, if you are a developer you become a public face of Gentoo.
You send emails with an @gentoo.org email address.  You have a cloak
on IRC that identifies you as part of Gentoo (even on non-Gentoo
Freenode channels).  You probably have voice or ops on various
channels.  You get tagged as a developer on the forums.  Your blog
gets aggregated on planet.

Even when not talking about Gentoo-related matters, developers end up
representing Gentoo in some sense.  That can cause issues that are
completely non-technical in nature, so how people use Gentoo
communications media matters.

If using my workplace email I send out an email to somebody outside of
work that is harassing I'd probably be fired for it, even if I did it
off-hours.  The company would have no choice, either they do something
about it, or they could face a lawsuit.

In the same way, if somebody does report a concern to Comrel then
Gentoo HAS to do something about it, or we could potentially be liable
for it.  Certainly if we don't enforce our CoC it will be bad for
reputation/etc.  I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with a
project where people mistreat each other and nobody does anything
about it.

So, while we can certainly have discussion about how Comrel should
work or where improvements can be made (I certainly think there is
room for improvement, and I suspect most of Comrel would probably
agree with that), I disagree that the only thing that should matter
when deciding whether somebody becomes a developer is technical merit,
or that we have no need of Comrel at all as a result.

Besides how we communicate and the CoC, there are also issues of
trust.  People with commit rights can cause lots of problems if
they're abused, so general maturity is something we ought to be
assessing.  Somebody with commit access who doesn't understand how
things work but is smart enough to never actually commit anything is
less harmful than somebody who generally knows what they're doing but
just goes off solo beyond their skills and creates a lot of trouble.

Bottom line is that it isn't all technical.

Again, this isn't intended to refer to any specific person or
situation, let alone your situation.  I'm just commenting that I think
we're better off having recruiters try to assess maturity and ability
to follow the CoC, and Comrel enforcing these as well.  That doesn't
prevent anybody from contributing.  I can think of a few people who
have lost commit access but have made significant positive
contributions to the distro since.  In some cases I'd be reluctant to
let them be a developer again.  Sometimes people that work reasonably
well together in one kind of environment don't work well in another.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2316 bytes --]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:04:56 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> ...

I am going to put myself out there and say that while I have had
disagreements with wltjr in the past, we have managed to overcome them
and we are still able to hold mature discussions about what is
best needed for Gentoo Java. Sometimes you do have to work with people
you occasionally find difficult. In a day job, you generally can't just
shut them out. Gentoo is a volunteer effort but I believe we should
still try harder to overcome these differences. Lord knows we need the
manpower.

What wltjr says about my situation is true. I joined Gentoo through the
Java team as I had made contributions there in the past and still had
some things I wanted packaged. I didn't expect the rest of the team to
all but disappear upon my arrival and I certainly didn't want to become
the lead. I reluctantly took on the role because there was hardly
anyone left with the knowledge of our extensive infrastructure. I've
dealt with some big issues but the Java project still faces some
serious challenges that I simply don't have a vested interest in
tackling. I will gladly keep working on the icedtea packages and some
other bits and pieces but despite talking about it a lot, I can't see
myself seriously taking on the likes of Maven packaging.

wltjr is afflicted with verbal diarrhoea which, while annoying, is not
a crime. Perhaps much of what he said would have been better left
unsaid but after 8 years, his frustrations are understandable. Once
making it through the door, he does intend to keep his head down. He'll
certainly have plenty to keep him busy. He therefore deserves a fresh
shot at this without being prejudged by certain people. Forcefully
preventing him from even trying probably is against policy, though I
confess I'm not familiar with it. If things don't work out, you still
have plenty of policy to deal with it.

To wltjr, you have commented that the recruitment process takes a lot
longer than it used to. Perhaps this does need addressing but I suggest
that as long as you're making progress, you just grin and bear it, as
fighting this will not do you any favours. Keep your eye on the prize.

Cheers,
-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:12:38 +0100
James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Once
> making it through the door, he does intend to keep his head down.
> He'll certainly have plenty to keep him busy.

One important thing I forgot to mention is that he does have
long-standing commercial interests in Gentoo Java, which is the driving
force that the rest of the team lack. His is probably the biggest
one-man overlay I've seen.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

On 09/29/2016 10:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Rather than post on list or to me, voice your opinions to comrel. Or even 
> better, Council destroy comrel and recruiting and revamp that entire process. 
> Comrel/recruiting should no longer be holding Gentoo back, nor the gatekeepers 
> for who can get in or not.

In my experience neither comrel nor recruiters are doing anything to
hold Gentoo back, quite the contrary, they do a job very few would want
to do in order to ensures the sustainability of the overall project.

Although certain aspects can be improved upon (which I expect we'll get
back to later), both projects have my full support.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:04 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> Gentoo is NOT a social project but a technical one. Social issues should not
> prevent or have anything to do with technical matters. One should be judged
> solely on their contributions, and the rest really does not matter. What
> Comrel/devrel did was basically screw Java on Gentoo. Drove away talent that
> was not replaced and Java has just suffered on Gentoo since 2008, as have
> other areas. I am not saying I am the end all be all to all of Gentoo's
> problems. I was NOT the only person driven away by comrel/devrel.

I'll thoroughly disagree with this part of your email. Any larger
project is not just technical -- it needs people who can cooperate. If
it is hard to cooperate with you (as it apparently was in the past, at
least in some situations/cases), then even though the technical side
may suffer, it might be better for the project not to recruit you
again. When comrel have driven people away I've generally agreed with
them.

Your post does not make me confident about your ability to see the
bigger picture and work with other developers. On the other hand, if
current Java developers think you'll make a net positive contribution,
then it makes sense to me to follow their judgement for now.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 09:05:04 AM Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
> Your post does not make me confident about your ability to see the
> bigger picture and work with other developers. On the other hand, if
> current Java developers think you'll make a net positive contribution,
> then it makes sense to me to follow their judgement for now.

This has been something sorely overlooked. Comrel disregards the judgment of 
developers looking to help me return who I actively worked with and who 
were looking to be my mentor. Not just insulting to me but to them as well, 
their judgment. Two of which have left Gentoo some time ago.

There is also the fact that every issue with me has basically occurred after I 
resigned. Comrel/devrel never de-escalated a situation from 2008, and instead 
it has only escalated. Why it perpetuates into the present rather than having 
been resolved in 2008.

Even comrel themselves have stated all issues are since I left not when I was 
a developer. That is because of their own conduct. This entire  situation 
would never have existed had they not got involved in 2008. They just can't 
not be involved since. Every time I try to further things they dredge up the 
past, make it repeat, and continual prevent Gentoo from progressing.

None of this came from people I had or would be working with, nor were they 
issues that came up during work. Without actual interacting with me or knowing 
me. They proceed to provoke, insult, and mistreat. Which brings a negative 
response due to a negative approach.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
http://www.obsidian-studios.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Benda Xu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

Hi William,

In general I am agree with Rich, Kristian and Dirkjan that comrel and
recruiters are doing their job.  Though nothing could be perfect.

I donot quite understand what happened in the past.  But from your email
I see your deep passion and love with Gentoo, not to mention your
contributions.  Glad you are going to try to get yourself on board.

I am thinking if we could dump baggages of the past and start afresh, at
least in the recruitment process.  I have never programmed in java, but
if you need someone to review your quiz, I am ready to help.

Yours,
Benda

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3579 bytes --]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 04:28:26 PM Benda Xu wrote:
> Hi William,
> 
> In general I am agree with Rich, Kristian and Dirkjan that comrel and
> recruiters are doing their job.  Though nothing could be perfect.

No other projects or distributions have a similar entity. I spent many years 
looking and researching. Gentoo's policies have more on policing, required 
conduct and considerably more on penalties than much older and larger 
distributions and projects. No one bothers to do any research here or they 
will see exactly what I have. Gentoo creates a structure unlike any other and 
runs into problems because of such.

> I donot quite understand what happened in the past.  But from your email
> I see your deep passion and love with Gentoo, not to mention your
> contributions.  Glad you are going to try to get yourself on board.

No one has ever really understood it since it first happened. Even the person 
who first complained about me to devrel in 2008 regretted that and tried to 
stop further action. Logs of that are in -dev mailing list though new 
developers likely do not have access.

Once devrel got going they would not stop. Their solution to the problem in 
2008, still exists in 2016. Why support an entity who cannot resolve issues? 
Who escalates and issue to span many years and getting much worse. 

All you need to understand is this, there was a problem back in 2008. 
Devrel/comrel got involved to correct such problem. Yet it is 2016 and said 
problem still remains and has gotten worse, both my attitude and the state of 
things on gentoo at last with regard to Java. What ever solution devrel/comrel 
has come up with has yet to actually work or be of benefit to Gentoo or me.

They never kicked me out. They wanted to take action I disagreed with so I 
left. No one filled my shoes or that void. Things just go worse, and the java 
team fell apart, and things were not updated for many years.
 
> I am thinking if we could dump baggages of the past and start afresh, at
> least in the recruitment process.  I have never programmed in java, but
> if you need someone to review your quiz, I am ready to help.

I have tried to move forward without the past numerous times. It has never 
worked the past always gets brought up. It literally did the last time as you 
can see on IRC logs in my bug. I think in part because members of comrel are 
still there from 2008, and will not let the past go.

However with the sentiments toward comrel, without realizing the overall 
negative impact such entity has had over gentoo over  a ~15year period of 
time.  It makes 

Projects like exherbo and funtoo exist. Which are the Gentoo community 
splintered. If comrel is so great, how come so many are driven away? Or people 
like me kept away? You can make assumptions comrel is doing their job and 
correctly.

What if comrel is wrong? What if I am good for Gentoo and they have just kept 
me out and mistreated me for a long time?  Where would Gentoo be if people 
that were driven away were still contributing all these years?

What if comrel is bad for Gentoo? What if comrel actions that are perceived to 
be good are actually harmful in the long run? Has anyone had a good experience 
with comrel? What is their tract record any stats or information?

Does anyone know how many people comrel has taken action against like me? 
People that were actually removed, not ones that left like me.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Obsidian-Studios, Inc.
http://www.obsidian-studios.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:19 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> What if comrel is wrong? What if I am good for Gentoo and they have just kept
> me out and mistreated me for a long time?  Where would Gentoo be if people
> that were driven away were still contributing all these years?
>

Ultimately the solution if somebody believes they're being mistreated
by comrel is to appeal to the Council.  The Council doesn't take any
action on specific cases without an appeal.  Indeed, the Council
doesn't even have knowledge of cases outside of appeals.  However,
most of the concerns about accountability that some seem to have with
Comrel do not apply to the Council since it is a body that is elected
annually in its entirety.

I'm actually going to start a few threads on -project on the Comrel
process and whether aspects of it should change (which others are
welcome to join in on, but I'm going to try to launch separate threads
on different aspects of the process as I expect this to be
high-traffic).  This is not going to be specific to any particular
case.  But, the topic has come up recently and there are a lot of
people who want to see some discussion around this.

If somebody knows more about how other distros are handling these
sorts of issues I'm all ears.  I can almost certainly guarantee that
most distros maintain some kind of code of conduct and enforce it.  I
just don't know how they do it.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 10:51:00 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> If somebody knows more about how other distros are handling these
> sorts of issues I'm all ears.  I can almost certainly guarantee that
> most distros maintain some kind of code of conduct and enforce it.  I
> just don't know how they do it.

I have extensively researched the matter. But I invite anyone to do a simple 
code of conduct comparison, Gentoo's to others.

The main thing I noticed was Gentoo's policies have much more detail on 
policing actions and penalties. I have yet to ever find anything even close. 
Most other projects seemed to handle things on a more individual case by case 
basis and less harshly over all.

That was my take thus far. If others come across similar code of conducts or 
bodies of enforcement. I would like to be aware, because I have yet to come 
across anything of the sort. Not to mention no entities like comrel, but for 
now focus on just the code of conduct.

https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct
http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct

Linux kernel code of conflict
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/CodeOfConflict?id=b0bc65729070b9cbdbb53ff042984a3c545a0e34

Now Gentoo's, the only one with a consequences section...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

Take it how you will, but there is a pretty big difference in Gentoo compared 
to just about all over. Which most others have larger more active communities, 
yet do not have a comrel entity, or the need for such policing actions.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:28 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> The main thing I noticed was Gentoo's policies have much more detail on
> policing actions and penalties. I have yet to ever find anything even close.
> Most other projects seemed to handle things on a more individual case by case
> basis and less harshly over all.
>

I suspect I could dig up a comment to this effect in the distant past,
but I do think that detailing penalties/etc is a bad idea.  This isn't
because I have a problem with the penalties, but rather because we're
trying to rigidly codify things too much.  Then when we need to
deviate everybody is going to question that decision.

There has always been a tendency in Gentoo to over-codify things, and
to use lack of codification as justification for doing dumb things.  I
don't think somebody has to break an explicitly-named rule to kick
somebody out of the distro (to use a very extreme example).  Standards
are good to have in general but they shouldn't be a crutch, or that we
should become legalistic in how things are handled.

I don't have an issue with Comrel documenting the penalties it
generally applies or the guidelines it follows so that things are
transparent.  I just don't think they should be codified into
something as high-level as a CoC where they're hard to change.

But, that is just my opinion, and as I said I think I probably raised
it ages ago and it didn't carry the day.

However, I do think that in the end other distros do take measures to
deal with people who they feel cause trouble, even if it isn't
technical in nature.  I suspect that many distros go as far as booting
people.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3116 bytes --]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 11:40:10 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:28 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > The main thing I noticed was Gentoo's policies have much more detail on
> > policing actions and penalties. I have yet to ever find anything even
> > close. Most other projects seemed to handle things on a more individual
> > case by case basis and less harshly over all.
> 
> I suspect I could dig up a comment to this effect in the distant past,
> but I do think that detailing penalties/etc is a bad idea.  This isn't
> because I have a problem with the penalties, but rather because we're
> trying to rigidly codify things too much.  Then when we need to
> deviate everybody is going to question that decision.

I think it should be public record on the actions a public project has taken 
to drive people away. Dates, reasons, resolution, etc. It is simple 
accountability for an entity that has none. Comrel reports to no one, they do 
not give accountability reports to council etc. Council is completely unaware 
of most comrel actions to my knowledge.

It seems comrel acts at times without full votes from all members. That alone 
should be made know for accountability. Also I question the authority that any 
one can act without taking it to a vote. That sounds fraught with problems.
 
> I don't have an issue with Comrel documenting the penalties it
> generally applies or the guidelines it follows so that things are
> transparent.  I just don't think they should be codified into
> something as high-level as a CoC where they're hard to change.

There are a few problems with such. It tries to apply general rules to 
situations rather than taking them on a case by case basis. Even the Laws in 
the US do not have set penalties, it is up to the judge.

Also I have even more issue with published policies and guidelines are not 
followed. Almost every action ever taken against me I can prove went against 
published policy. Going back to 2008, and including being silenced in comrel 
in 2015.

I have never had a warning from Comrel, just action. There is no documentation 
of any formal warning being issued to me ever. Not via email, on bug, etc.
 
What is referenced in my bug as a warning is a unofficial comment on -nfp from a 
devrel member. Who just happened to be one of the ones harassing me and 
responsible for me stepping down as a Trustee. Which is also in part why I 
never respected devrels actions back then. There was an obvious conflict of 
interest, with members of devrel being the ones who had issues with me, not 
others....

> However, I do think that in the end other distros do take measures to
> deal with people who they feel cause trouble, even if it isn't
> technical in nature.  I suspect that many distros go as far as booting
> people.

I do not think any has the history of such as does Gentoo. It would be 
interesting to see or learn. I believe the others also do what they can to 
mitigate and resolve issues amicably.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:53 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 30, 2016 11:40:10 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I suspect I could dig up a comment to this effect in the distant past,
>> but I do think that detailing penalties/etc is a bad idea.  This isn't
>> because I have a problem with the penalties, but rather because we're
>> trying to rigidly codify things too much.  Then when we need to
>> deviate everybody is going to question that decision.
>
> I think it should be public record on the actions a public project has taken
> to drive people away. Dates, reasons, resolution, etc. It is simple
> accountability for an entity that has none. Comrel reports to no one, they do
> not give accountability reports to council etc. Council is completely unaware
> of most comrel actions to my knowledge.

This is actually the topic of my first -project email, but as I'll
elaborate on, there are pros and cons to making every personal dispute
a public record.

> It seems comrel acts at times without full votes from all members. That alone
> should be made know for accountability. Also I question the authority that any
> one can act without taking it to a vote. That sounds fraught with problems.

Well, it sounds like you were offered the opportunity to call for a
vote of all members.  You're certainly allowed to appeal to the
Council (that's in black and white on our policies).  I won't argue
that there are other ways of potentially making Comrel more
accountable/etc which I'm sure will be other topics that come up on
-project, but you haven't actually exhausted the mechanisms already at
your disposal.  Part of the reason that Comrel actions can be appealed
to the Council is because Comrel is a fairly closed body that isn't
very transparent, and the Council is an elected body that any
developer can potentially join, and ultimately Council members have to
answer to the community for their actions.  That said, appeals to the
Council are also not public, and again that is something we can
discuss on a separate thread but that carries the same sorts of pros
and cons.

I don't think it is generally helpful when people go to the lists/etc
with complaints about how their cases are handled, but strictly
speaking we don't really do anything to try to censor such activities.
The reason I think it is unhelpful is that it tends to burn bridges,
and you're taking something that was kept private in part for your own
benefit and turning it into a public issue.  However, as unpleasant as
I at least personally find it, I know I'm accountable to the
developers for any decisions I do make in appeal/etc (they don't even
need a reason at all to not vote for me).

>
>> I don't have an issue with Comrel documenting the penalties it
>> generally applies or the guidelines it follows so that things are
>> transparent.  I just don't think they should be codified into
>> something as high-level as a CoC where they're hard to change.
>
> There are a few problems with such. It tries to apply general rules to
> situations rather than taking them on a case by case basis. Even the Laws in
> the US do not have set penalties, it is up to the judge.

If only that were true, but mandatory sentencing guidelines are
actually a subject of controversy in the US.  :)  But, no argument on
your actual point.

>
> I have never had a warning from Comrel, just action. There is no documentation
> of any formal warning being issued to me ever. Not via email, on bug, etc.
>

So, I can't comment on your specific case largely because I'm not even
privy to the details (I would be if you appealed, but then I'd be even
more reluctant to comment in public as I'd have a duty to keep those
details confidential).

However, I think one issue with Comrel is that they're probably
overworked just like a lot of other Gentoo projects, and that probably
makes them more prone to not dotting all the i's.  That would merit
its own thread, but it is a big challenge because it isn't good for
people to not be given an opportunity to fix their mistakes, and it
also isn't good for problems to be ignored because Comrel members
don't feel like going through all the effort of dealing with them.  We
need a reasonable process that can be done efficiently.

I also wouldn't say that every problem merits a warning.  To pick an
extreme example, if somebody is caught committing rootkits into
packages, I don't think we need to give them a warning before pulling
their commit access (I'm sure this is something all our users will be
thankful for).  On the other hand, if somebody makes a minor change to
an eclass without an RFC on -dev that probably merits more leeway.
Again, I can't speak to whatever your specific issues were.

> What is referenced in my bug as a warning is a unofficial comment on -nfp from a
> devrel member. Who just happened to be one of the ones harassing me and
> responsible for me stepping down as a Trustee. Which is also in part why I
> never respected devrels actions back then. There was an obvious conflict of
> interest, with members of devrel being the ones who had issues with me, not
> others....

And this is another reason that appeals to Council are allowed.  We do
generally recuse ourselves when we have personal conflicts of
interest, and our Comrel members tend to recuse themselves
automatically (which personally I think is unnecessary, but it is a
bit moot as it is their right to recuse themselves if they have
concerns and it isn't like I can force them to vote).  So, at present
Council appeals are basically a completely independent evaluation of
the issue.

However, I will say that in general if somebody is going to appeal to
the Council they're better off making their case on how they are
demonstrating that they intend to be a good member of the community,
and not on whether we ought to be concerned with such matters in the
first place.  Speaking personally I would certainly evaluate the
information I have independently, but I'm going to be asking myself
whether this is somebody who is going to work well with the rest of
the community.  No comrel action is truly permanent, if the situation
or the people involve change people can rejoin Gentoo, and there are
several former developers who didn't leave entirely by their own
choice but they're still a part of the larger community and some
contribute to fairly important projects.  Sometimes things just work
out better that way, and maybe in some cases it makes sense for them
to return.  I think we're all interested in facilitating contributions
from devs and non-devs alike, and of course we want people to be
treated fairly.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:53:46AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > However, I do think that in the end other distros do take measures to
> > deal with people who they feel cause trouble, even if it isn't
> > technical in nature.  I suspect that many distros go as far as booting
> > people.
> I do not think any has the history of such as does Gentoo. It would be 
> interesting to see or learn. I believe the others also do what they can to 
> mitigate and resolve issues amicably.
Yes, other distributions do go as far to boot troublesome people, both
technical and interpersonal, and it's been just as messy as Gentoo. I
know of some events, but I'm certain this is just a small sampling of
the events (high visibility and low). As you read below, you're really
going to want some popcorn. Even prior to having documents explicitly
titled with "Code of Conduct", the organizations did have some manner of
policies in place (FreeBSD esp.)

Debian's equivalent of DevRel is the "Account Maintainers", which, at
least a decade ago were significantly more of a "cabal" to those looking
for conspiratorial plots. I know of at least 4 Debian maintainers
ejected from the project.

FreeBSD's "core" has the devrel role, and has also been accused of
similar lack of transparency. Two high-visibility ejections are further
detailed below.

Debian:
In 2006, came the conclusion of the Debian events with "krooger" (Ted
Walther / Jonathan Walther). I met him in 2004, as part of a keysigning
event. His Debian Project Leader election platforms of 2005 & 2006 are
notable reading [including the proposal to reform Debian's New
Maintainer process, by requiring active developers renew-by-retesting].
In the DPL 2005 election, he was the first person to ever rank below
"None of the above", which says a lot about how he was viewed by other
Debian Maintainers.

I met him again, via social circles, a few years ago, and at the time,
he was still sure there was a long-term grudge against him, from
inflammatory remarks he made in in the early 2000s, which he felt
contributed to his in-person expulsion from Debian during DebConf06 (the
expulsion message was originally posted to debian-private, but leaked
onto the internet).  After the expulsion, he left tech for a few years
(studied non-tech things), had a small tech business, followed other
non-tech business.

Debian does have some cleaner developer removals as well: krooger
mentioned two of them [1], because somebody asked him during the DPL
election about who he'd eject from Debian. The other one that I'm aware
of, is Lars Wirzenius (liw), who admitted [2] that he was kicked out of
Debian for insulting somebody, and later re-admitted.

FreeBSD:
In 2003, Dillon was kicked out FreeBSD, and the public postings [3]
about it noted his "interdeveloper relation skills". FreeBSD at the time
had "The FreeBSD Committers' Big List of Rules" [4], which while not
explicitly labeled as a Code of Conduct in themselves, were already
referred to as such, and do explicitly mention penalties. (P.S. Dillon
forked FreeBSD after being kicked out).

Much more recently, you can look at FreeBSD & Randi Harper, wherein
FreeBSD gained an explicit CoC, and various legal remarks were made
usage of the FreeBSD trademark. Publicly messy event, but key decisions
by FreeBSD core were still not made transparently.

[1] http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Candidate-questions-expulsions-process-tp2329145p2329158.html
[2] http://blog.liw.fi/posts/dd20/
[3] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=5219480&sid=52722&tid=7
[4] http://web.archive.org/web/20031214041942/http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/rules.html

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 12:09:41 AM EDT Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:53:46AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > > However, I do think that in the end other distros do take measures to
> > > deal with people who they feel cause trouble, even if it isn't
> > > technical in nature.  I suspect that many distros go as far as booting
> > > people.
> > 
> > I do not think any has the history of such as does Gentoo. It would be
> > interesting to see or learn. I believe the others also do what they can to
> > mitigate and resolve issues amicably.
> 
> Yes, other distributions do go as far to boot troublesome people, both
> technical and interpersonal, and it's been just as messy as Gentoo.

First off I was never booted or kicked. I voluntarily resigned as a developer, 
about a week after resigning as a Trustee.

Take that on the surface for a moment, an active Trustee was motivated to 
resign. Then about a week later, motivated to resign as a developer. Neither a 
are good thing, losing an active Trustee or Developer.

Regardless of other distros booting people and even their policies. All remain 
more mainstream than Gentoo. Gentoo has fallen from its position, and is not a 
rising distro. Policies and booting people aside, the others remained to keep 
more involved, the project moving forward and technically progressing.

The fact that aspects of Gentoo Java were not moved forward since 2008. In 
addition to goals with the Gentoo Foundation and IRS. Just proves my point.

As a whole it is and was not good for Gentoo. If this was the case with 
others. It can explain at least in part why Gentoo seems to be falling rather 
than rising. Some regardless of how or what goes on does not seem to be the 
case with others.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. 
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 12:09:41 AM EDT Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>  On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:53:46AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. 
>> wrote:
>>  > > However, I do think that in the end other distros do take 
>> measures to
>>  > > deal with people who they feel cause trouble, even if it isn't
>>  > > technical in nature.  I suspect that many distros go as far as 
>> booting
>>  > > people.
>>  >
>>  > I do not think any has the history of such as does Gentoo. It 
>> would be
>>  > interesting to see or learn. I believe the others also do what 
>> they can to
>>  > mitigate and resolve issues amicably.
>> 
>>  Yes, other distributions do go as far to boot troublesome people, 
>> both
>>  technical and interpersonal, and it's been just as messy as Gentoo.
> 
> First off I was never booted or kicked. I voluntarily resigned as a 
> developer,
> about a week after resigning as a Trustee.
> 
> Take that on the surface for a moment, an active Trustee was 
> motivated to
> resign. Then about a week later, motivated to resign as a developer. 
> Neither a
> are good thing, losing an active Trustee or Developer.
> 
> Regardless of other distros booting people and even their policies. 
> All remain
> more mainstream than Gentoo. Gentoo has fallen from its position, and 
> is not a
> rising distro. Policies and booting people aside, the others remained 
> to keep
> more involved, the project moving forward and technically progressing.
> 
> The fact that aspects of Gentoo Java were not moved forward since 
> 2008. In
> addition to goals with the Gentoo Foundation and IRS. Just proves my 
> point.
> 
> As a whole it is and was not good for Gentoo. If this was the case 
> with
> others. It can explain at least in part why Gentoo seems to be 
> falling rather
> than rising. Some regardless of how or what goes on does not seem to 
> be the
> case with others.

I will both agree and disagree with you.

I am a determined wanna-be developer that has been waylaid incessantly 
by RL drama on my own side and bureaucratic headaches on Gentoo's side 
in my quest to be recruited, and still, I haven't given up.

I also saw some recent drama with comrel, so I can sympathize.

My input:  Moan and lament constructively and critically all you like, 
but don't forget that you need to do the best you can and direct your 
passion towards the change you want to see.  there are some things you 
cannot do becuase someone else is sitting on them, and some things you 
*can* do.

Furthermore, being proactive about what you can control may well expand 
your own influence.  I cite both Steven R. Covey's "7 habits of highly 
effective people", as well as my own mentors who counseled me that 
becoming a dev is partly proving that I have the passion to do the work.

Join me.

> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2562 bytes --]

On 09/30/2016 07:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:19 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> What if comrel is wrong? What if I am good for Gentoo and they have just kept
>> me out and mistreated me for a long time?  Where would Gentoo be if people
>> that were driven away were still contributing all these years?
>>
> 
> [snip]
> 
> If somebody knows more about how other distros are handling these
> sorts of issues I'm all ears.  I can almost certainly guarantee that
> most distros maintain some kind of code of conduct and enforce it.  I
> just don't know how they do it.
> 
Based on what I can tell, things are handled ad hoc, with somewhat vague
references to established conduct expectations.

Arch has a wikipage for CoC [1], but it spans to both users and
developers and much of it is imo too far. When I was an Arch user, I
witnessed quite a few threads deleted and people banned on IRC over
things that we generally allow.

Ubuntu's CoC [2] is more wishy-washy and thus open to interpretation. In
fact it reads somewhat close to the "Open Code of Conduct" which GitHub
adopted a while back and imo encourages rule lawyering and SJW shenanigans.

It's part of why I generally support the Gentoo CoC despite disagreeing
with a few of the finer points (strong language mostly): it gives me a
clear idea of what conduct I am to exemplify while acting in my
developer role. Disputes are easily examined due to how detailed the
policy is, though it can result in policy lawyering from time to time.

In short, two of the most popular distros have broad, but less precise
ideas of what they expect from their community. (I couldn't find
anything relating directly to internal developers; my search-fu isn't
that great) To my knowledge Arch is still lead by BDFL Aaron "phrakture"
Griffin and of course Ubuntu is led by Mark Shuttleworth. There may be
lieutenants or "community managers" involved that do the dirty work, but
their power structure generally sits with one person at the top.

That said, I've not been a developer for either of them, and haven't
been a part of their communities since 2007 and 2012, respectively.
There may be more to the picture that's simply not shared with the public.

[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct
[2]: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1728 bytes --]

On 09/30/2016 12:28 AM, Benda Xu wrote:
> Hi William,
> 
> In general I am agree with Rich, Kristian and Dirkjan that comrel and
> recruiters are doing their job.  Though nothing could be perfect.
> 
> I donot quite understand what happened in the past.  But from your email
> I see your deep passion and love with Gentoo, not to mention your
> contributions.  Glad you are going to try to get yourself on board.
> 
> I am thinking if we could dump baggages of the past and start afresh, at
> least in the recruitment process.  I have never programmed in java, but
> if you need someone to review your quiz, I am ready to help.
> 
> Yours,
> Benda
> 
That's a good point. Personalities, situations, and even the given goals
of a group can change over the course of time. There's a certain point
imo where it does no good to hold grudges and it's healthier to start over.

I know nothing of the prior situation, William, but as someone who cut
their dev teeth on a few Java packages, it takes a hell of a person to
work on those ebuilds, and the project needs all the help it can get.
monsieurp and chewi have done a whole lot for it, but I think they could
use someone who uses Gentoo+Java in a more demanding environment (such
as work), and it seems like you fit that bill. I'm not on the team, but
for the sake of the Java programmers out there (again, not me) your
presence would benefit Java on Gentoo as dealing with it in a workplace
gives you a strong understanding of what the ebuilds need to support and
how the packages tend to be used.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2016, 10:20:22 schrieb Daniel Campbell:
> 
> That's a good point. Personalities, situations, and even the given goals
> of a group can change over the course of time. There's a certain point
> imo where it does no good to hold grudges and it's healthier to start over.
> 

The misconception here is that last year's events have been influenced by "old 
grudges". 

Hey, nobody cares about 2007 anymore. (Except William.)

His recent output is quite sufficient to come to a decision. 

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=2ysg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Gregory Woodbury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2342 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2016, 10:20:22 schrieb Daniel Campbell:
> >
> > That's a good point. Personalities, situations, and even the given goals
> > of a group can change over the course of time. There's a certain point
> > imo where it does no good to hold grudges and it's healthier to start
> over.
> >
>
> The misconception here is that last year's events have been influenced by
> "old
> grudges".
>
> Hey, nobody cares about 2007 anymore. (Except William.)
>
> His recent output is quite sufficient to come to a decision.
>

Actually, I think this statement makes it clear that "old grudges" ARE
influencing the
current situation.  It may be William that is bring them up, but everyone
is still reacting as
if they are still relevant.  It is clear that William feels injured by the
old incidents, and
feels that they have impeded his attempts to return. It is also clear that
he bears as much
responsibility as anyone for their still being relevant.

Perhaps someone should take a moment to step back and say "Yes, there were
some problems
and we are sorry they happened; and maybe you should apologize for being a
bit of a PITA,
and just let it all drop into the bit bucket."

There is a lot of fine whine being served, and all of it should be wiped
off the table.

William: Just do the necessary things; ask for a new "mentor", go through
the quizes,
and don't respond to non-germane comments. submit patches and ebuild
corrections
via bugzilla, and don't respond to non-technical comments.

ComRel/DevRel/whomever: Do your jobs and fairly evaluate the technical
talents
necessary to evaluate and grant the appropriate resources.  Do not indulge
in
gratuitous non-technical commentary; only determine if conversations about
technical
issues remain involved in technical commentary. All actions should be voted
on
and recorded.

All this should take place in open bugzilla entries, except the quizes (and
their logs
should be saved somewhere in neutral territory. And perhaps a Council
member of two should be
pinged to keep an eye on the process.


- --
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>

-- 
-- 
G.Wolfe Woodbury
redwolfe@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3573 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:44:47 PM EDT Gregory Woodbury wrote:

> William: Just do the necessary things; ask for a new "mentor", go through
> the quizes,
> and don't respond to non-germane comments. submit patches and ebuild
> corrections
> via bugzilla, and don't respond to non-technical comments.

I do not want to embarrass or drag another dev into the mud as my mentor. Not 
till I know I will get a fair shot and the effort actually result in me 
becoming a developer. It has already embarrassed 3 developers.

Again what comrel/devrel disgregards when developers open a bug a a mentor. 
They are vouching for the person, their work, their skills, their ability to 
work with others. When comrel shoots someone down, that is a slap in the face 
to the contributor, and to the mentoring developer.

I believe heroxbd - Benda XU is willing to be my mentor, as he is working on 
some Java stuff, and contributing to java-ebuilder project. But I do not want 
to involve him till the air is clear with regard to comrel, the past, and 
things able to move forward.

I am tired of the past repeating itself. Thus going outside comrel before I 
try to go through them again... Unfortunately recruiting being related to 
comrel, you cannot deal with recruiting without comrel being in the picture.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:29 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> I am tired of the past repeating itself. Thus going outside comrel before I
> try to go through them again... Unfortunately recruiting being related to
> comrel, you cannot deal with recruiting without comrel being in the picture.
>

Well, if you have a problem with Comrel you might try following the
official process before starting a mailing list discussion.

I'm pretty sure one of the quizzes has a question about how to handle
disputes/etc for exactly this reason.

Nobody is going to reply to this list and promise you that you're
going to be allowed to be made a dev even if Comrel objects unless
this is overturned in an appeal.

The only general advice I can offer to people who have had past
brushes with Comrel is to:
1.  Acknowledge the importance of demonstrating that you can work with
others.  (If you can't do that, you probably won't be admitted.)
2.  Work to demonstrate that you can indeed work well with others
today, regardless what may or may not have been a problem in the past.

I'm not going to pass judgment on any individual without having all
the facts.  However, as a matter of principle I certainly believe that
is important that prospective devs demonstrate that they're able to
work well with others in the community.  If somebody believes they've
truly done this and Comrel just isn't getting it, well, they can
appeal.  If they're going to appeal on the argument that being able to
work well with others doesn't matter, well, that is their right, but
my sense is that it is unlikely to get them far.

And as I've pointed out, there are a fair number of people who have
made significant contributions as non-developers.  Anybody can offer
pull requests of Java (or other project) ebuilds at any time, and a
developer can merge them in.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3891 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 11:47:11 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Well, if you have a problem with Comrel you might try following the
> official process before starting a mailing list discussion.
> 
> I'm pretty sure one of the quizzes has a question about how to handle
> disputes/etc for exactly this reason.

That has been part of my problem. I disagree with such questions, the answers, 
so can get hung up on those questions on the quiz. Why one review took 2 hours 
and did not max it past the 10th question on the 1st of 3 quizzes.

> Nobody is going to reply to this list and promise you that you're
> going to be allowed to be made a dev even if Comrel objects unless
> this is overturned in an appeal.

Understood, but once light has been shed on the matter. Maybe I can be assured 
the past will not be brought up and it has in the past. Even the team lead of 
comrel who made some what I would consider unprofessional comments coming from 
an educator. Made completely inaccurate statements saying the past had no 
bearing on the events in 2015, despite facts showing otherwise.

At the same time discussion is taking place. Maybe others will seek to change 
things and that may make the process better for me to return. You never know 
till you try, and what I tried before did not work. Appeals I feel is some 
what futile and in most cases should not be necessary.

It is also not clear what I would be appealing...

> The only general advice I can offer to people who have had past
> brushes with Comrel is to:
> 1.  Acknowledge the importance of demonstrating that you can work with
> others.  (If you can't do that, you probably won't be admitted.)
> 2.  Work to demonstrate that you can indeed work well with others
> today, regardless what may or may not have been a problem in the past.

Are both of these not assumed when a mentor opens a bug for a contributor to 
become a developer?

Is  the mentor not confirming the person can work with others, as in them at 
minimum. Likely the mentor has seen them work with others as well.

Why does the mentor not factor in at all here?

Unless comrel is going to research every commit and contribution, at some 
point they have to let the mentor vouch for the contributor. After all I was 
requested to do what I had already done. Comrel was just unaware and that is 
not my nor the mentor's fault.

> I'm not going to pass judgment on any individual without having all
> the facts.  However, as a matter of principle I certainly believe that
> is important that prospective devs demonstrate that they're able to
> work well with others in the community.  If somebody believes they've
> truly done this and Comrel just isn't getting it, well, they can
> appeal.  If they're going to appeal on the argument that being able to
> work well with others doesn't matter, well, that is their right, but
> my sense is that it is unlikely to get them far.

Where does the mentor come into play? Are they not vouching for the 
individual?

> And as I've pointed out, there are a fair number of people who have
> made significant contributions as non-developers.  Anybody can offer
> pull requests of Java (or other project) ebuilds at any time, and a
> developer can merge them in.

So why is stuff sitting in GitHub PRs? Why did stuff sit in bugs for years? 
Why is stuff still in tree I was seeking to remove in 2008?

Any comments along the lines of you can contribute to Gentoo Java from the 
outside. Is making that comments from an uneducated uninformed position. Go 
look into the details. The reality may shock you. Its VERY bad, for a VERY 
long period of time. It will take MASSIVE amounts of work. ~5-10 Java devs.

People just do not understand, Java is massive, and some aspects pretty 
complex. Go package something like Hadoop from source. Why is Jenkins in tree 
binary and not from source?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 11:47:11 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Well, if you have a problem with Comrel you might try following the
>> official process before starting a mailing list discussion.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure one of the quizzes has a question about how to handle
>> disputes/etc for exactly this reason.
>
> That has been part of my problem. I disagree with such questions, the answers,
> so can get hung up on those questions on the quiz. Why one review took 2 hours
> and did not max it past the 10th question on the 1st of 3 quizzes.

Your agreement with the question isn't really the concern.  Your
understanding of the correct answer, and willingness to comply with it
is.

There are Gentoo policies I personally disagree with.  I still comply
with these policies.  If I didn't comply with policy I'd expect to be
called out on it.  If policies are bad they can be changed, and I have
more of a say in that than most, but it isn't like I can just make the
policies anything I want them to be.

>
>> The only general advice I can offer to people who have had past
>> brushes with Comrel is to:
>> 1.  Acknowledge the importance of demonstrating that you can work with
>> others.  (If you can't do that, you probably won't be admitted.)
>> 2.  Work to demonstrate that you can indeed work well with others
>> today, regardless what may or may not have been a problem in the past.
>
> Are both of these not assumed when a mentor opens a bug for a contributor to
> become a developer?
>
> Is  the mentor not confirming the person can work with others, as in them at
> minimum. Likely the mentor has seen them work with others as well.
>
> Why does the mentor not factor in at all here?

If the mentor didn't think you would work out, you wouldn't even be
talking to the recruiters.

The general way things have worked is that any dev can be a mentor,
and then to assure quality we have a smaller pool of recruiters to
ensure that consistent standards are applied to new recruits, since
the pool of all developers is much larger.  I've heard that in the
past there were quality concerns when this wasn't done, and of course
back in the very early days of Gentoo the pool of developers was much
smaller and being essentially a dictatorship issues were dealt with
more expediently.

It wasn't any different when I joined Gentoo.  I had two mentors and a
recruiter, and while the process with the recruiter was somewhat
redundant, it wasn't particularly onerous.

>> I'm not going to pass judgment on any individual without having all
>> the facts.  However, as a matter of principle I certainly believe that
>> is important that prospective devs demonstrate that they're able to
>> work well with others in the community.  If somebody believes they've
>> truly done this and Comrel just isn't getting it, well, they can
>> appeal.  If they're going to appeal on the argument that being able to
>> work well with others doesn't matter, well, that is their right, but
>> my sense is that it is unlikely to get them far.
>
> Where does the mentor come into play? Are they not vouching for the
> individual?

I'm sure their words carry weight, but they may not be aware of
whatever issues Comrel has, and they may have different priorities.

Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
trouble.

>
>> And as I've pointed out, there are a fair number of people who have
>> made significant contributions as non-developers.  Anybody can offer
>> pull requests of Java (or other project) ebuilds at any time, and a
>> developer can merge them in.
>
> So why is stuff sitting in GitHub PRs? Why did stuff sit in bugs for years?
> Why is stuff still in tree I was seeking to remove in 2008?

You would need to ask the developers you want to commit it for you.
It sounds like a few have spoken up in the thread about being
interested in Java contributions, so I'm sure they'd be willing to
work with you to commit any ebuilds you provide.

>
> Any comments along the lines of you can contribute to Gentoo Java from the
> outside. Is making that comments from an uneducated uninformed position. Go
> look into the details. The reality may shock you. Its VERY bad, for a VERY
> long period of time. It will take MASSIVE amounts of work. ~5-10 Java devs.
>

That doesn't surprise me, and nobody is against having more Java devs.
Or more Gentoo recruiters for that matter (there have been calls for
more people to volunteer to help with that as well.  In the end we're
a volunteer-based or and we need to work with what we have, but that
doesn't mean we don't need the Code of Conduct, because that just
drives away a lot of other people.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8114 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 2:04:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>
> > That has been part of my problem. I disagree with such questions, the
> > answers, so can get hung up on those questions on the quiz. Why one
> > review took 2 hours and did not max it past the 10th question on the 1st
> > of 3 quizzes.
> Your agreement with the question isn't really the concern.  Your
> understanding of the correct answer, and willingness to comply with it
> is.

I disagree with the correct answers. These are not technical questions but 
social. I disagree with much of how Gentoo is structured. I also question if 
returning developers should even be wasting time on portions of the quizzes 
that are non-technical. I doubt people would have forgot such. If anything 
they may have different views such as me from having been involved and if 
anything to involved and to knowledgeable.
 
If I had no experience or knowledge, answer the questions to what is the 
expected correct answer would be easy. But I disagree with the correct answer, 
out of both experience and knowledge.

> There are Gentoo policies I personally disagree with.  I still comply
> with these policies.  If I didn't comply with policy I'd expect to be
> called out on it.  If policies are bad they can be changed, and I have
> more of a say in that than most, but it isn't like I can just make the
> policies anything I want them to be.

If I can change code from the outside. Then I can change/effect policies just 
the same, no? Must I be a developer to change Gentoo policies?

> If the mentor didn't think you would work out, you wouldn't even be
> talking to the recruiters.

Then why does comrel require to see things from a contributor the mentor has 
already?

Its basically says, yes your are the mentoring developer, but we do not trust 
you that this person is ready to be a developer. So we will put our own 
requirements onto this person. Who despite you working with them, and your 
awareness of their recent actions. Since we/comrel are not aware of this 
persons contributions, because we have not done any research. Nor do we trust 
the mentor that this person is ready to become a developer.

> It wasn't any different when I joined Gentoo.  I had two mentors and a
> recruiter, and while the process with the recruiter was somewhat
> redundant, it wasn't particularly onerous.

Things were very different when I joined in 2006. If they had been how they 
have since 2006, I doubt I would have ever become a developer. I have seen the 
process become much worse since 2006. The fact that there has been no Java 
team since ~2008-2010 is evidence of such.

> > Where does the mentor come into play? Are they not vouching for the
> > individual?
> 
> I'm sure their words carry weight, but they may not be aware of
> whatever issues Comrel has, and they may have different priorities.

Could that not be said about comrel? Comrel likely has much less awareness of 
any given recruit than mentors. Comrel is not working them as a mentor would. 
In my experience Comrel has NEVER had any knowledge or awareness of my 
contributions.

If they did, they would realize what they are doing, and how they are holding 
Gentoo back. They would have an idea of the scope of work. None work in Gentoo 
Java, or touch any of that. They have no appreciation for what all it takes, 
much less amount of work. Nor any contributions from people seeking to become 
developers.

They have always asked me for what I already did before they asked. They never 
bothered to go look. Or even talk to the mentors most times....

> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
> trouble.

I do not think anyone can assure that. At the same time, how many years does 
Gentoo want to go with areas like Java being neglected? Beyond technical it 
seems this also effected the Gentoo's status with the IRS. Something I would 
have corrected years ago, like the other things I accomplished very quickly. 
That had not been done in years till I came along. It is not of any surprise 
nothing has happened since 2008 with the IRS.

Not saying anything negative toward Trustees since I resigned, either that I 
served with or since. I simply had a unique set of skills that was beneficial.

In reality Gentoo could have much worse problems by not being straight with 
the IRS. If that was ever the case, and if someone say me could have corrected 
that. Then comrel/devrel could be directly responsible for some major legal 
issues regarding Gentoo.

If the technical stuff is not enough to make you think. Java on Gentoo not 
moving forward much since 2008. Then the situation with Gentoo and the IRS 
should make you take noticed immediately!

> 
> You would need to ask the developers you want to commit it for you.
> It sounds like a few have spoken up in the thread about being
> interested in Java contributions, so I'm sure they'd be willing to
> work with you to commit any ebuilds you provide.

Because there is not anyone...

They have been working with me, but they are moving on and limited on time. 
What is it others do not understand about that? Before a few came along it was 
much worse. Chewi is looking to move to Games, and Java is back to suffering 
since. Even with Chewi, monsieurp, fordfrog, myself and others. Java was still 
suffering in 2015 and 2016. Now it is back to now one being able to commit the 
work.

Again go hang out around Gentoo Java. See nothing going on for a long period 
of time. How is anything supposed to get done where there is no one to do the 
work? I can submit PRs, open bugs, etc for days. It will all just rot as there 
is NO one to commit the work?

Should I said it again? There is NO one to commit Java contributions. There is 
no Gentoo Java Team....

Should I repeat again? Even Chewi/James Le Cruirot said it himself. Yet no one 
is listening, and people keep saying go contribute.

Contribute to whom? Who will commit the work? Who wants to proxy my entire 
overlay, 98 ebuilds in dev-java alone much less others. Say it takes 1 minute 
per commit. That is close to 2 hours of nothing but proxying.

That is a VERY small amount of what needs to be done...

> That doesn't surprise me, and nobody is against having more Java devs.
> Or more Gentoo recruiters for that matter (there have been calls for
> more people to volunteer to help with that as well.  In the end we're
> a volunteer-based or and we need to work with what we have, but that
> doesn't mean we don't need the Code of Conduct, because that just
> drives away a lot of other people.

What is being done to get new Java Devs? Why has there been no team since 
2008-2010?

Who was responsible for the Java Team in the first place?

Fact is, I brought on more Java devs within my 2 years of being a dev than has 
ever happened for Gentoo Java. After I left, it is of no surprise the team 
fell apart. I had organized monthly meetings, and we had an active thriving 
team.

None liked what happened to me on the foundation side. Comrel destroyed the 
Java Team. Say what you will about me, but fact is I attract others. For 
anyone who assumes people do not want to work with me. Even more actually do, 
they just are not aware of such.

One of my main goals if I ever got back into Java is to rebuild the team. This 
is a much bigger issue than just me returning to Gentoo. The amount of benefits 
and work to be done would be substantial. Gentoo stands to benefit way more 
than I would ever. Just the same Gentoo stands to lose out much worse.

What if I got Gentoo squared with the IRS years ago, not to mention Java being 
current, and things like Hadoop, Jenkins and others being packaged from 
source. Along with Enterprise Java Containers, Glassfish, Wildfly, and TomEE...

Your telling me it was good Comrel/devrel drove me away and that Java has 
suffered not to mention the IRS status?

That is a pretty hard case to sell to anyone based on those facts.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 2:04:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>
>> > That has been part of my problem. I disagree with such questions, the
>> > answers, so can get hung up on those questions on the quiz. Why one
>> > review took 2 hours and did not max it past the 10th question on the 1st
>> > of 3 quizzes.
>> Your agreement with the question isn't really the concern.  Your
>> understanding of the correct answer, and willingness to comply with it
>> is.
>
> I disagree with the correct answers.

As I said, your agreement isn't the concern.  Compliance is the
concern, and if there is a difference of opinion on that part then it
is MUCH easier to deal with before making somebody a dev than after.

>
>> There are Gentoo policies I personally disagree with.  I still comply
>> with these policies.  If I didn't comply with policy I'd expect to be
>> called out on it.  If policies are bad they can be changed, and I have
>> more of a say in that than most, but it isn't like I can just make the
>> policies anything I want them to be.
>
> If I can change code from the outside. Then I can change/effect policies just
> the same, no? Must I be a developer to change Gentoo policies?

Obviously not.  You're making an appeal for change now.  Ultimately it
is up to the community to decide whether policy ought to change.  You
don't formally get a vote in that now, but influence matters more than
votes anyway, IMO.

>
>> If the mentor didn't think you would work out, you wouldn't even be
>> talking to the recruiters.
>
> Then why does comrel require to see things from a contributor the mentor has
> already?
>
> Its basically says, yes your are the mentoring developer, but we do not trust
> you that this person is ready to be a developer. So we will put our own
> requirements onto this person. Who despite you working with them, and your
> awareness of their recent actions. Since we/comrel are not aware of this
> persons contributions, because we have not done any research. Nor do we trust
> the mentor that this person is ready to become a developer.

Ultimately making somebody a developer is a fairly important decision.
You can call it distrust if you wish, but it is the sort of thing that
requires rigor.

This is no different than the opposite situation.  If a random
developer decides that you aren't worth keeping around, can they just
ask infra to revoke your access and give them their word that they're
sure it is the right thing to do?

This is why we have a process.  If there was a past Comrel action
against you then you're subject to more process than a vanilla
recruit.  However, your history probably benefits you on the technical
side.

>
>> It wasn't any different when I joined Gentoo.  I had two mentors and a
>> recruiter, and while the process with the recruiter was somewhat
>> redundant, it wasn't particularly onerous.
>
> Things were very different when I joined in 2006. If they had been how they
> have since 2006, I doubt I would have ever become a developer. I have seen the
> process become much worse since 2006. The fact that there has been no Java
> team since ~2008-2010 is evidence of such.

I can't imagine things were all that different in 2006 than in 2007
when I became a developer.  I was using Gentoo long before this time
and at least somewhat involved in the community, though I didn't get
involved in the politics of that day other than as an arch tester.
(And nobody gets upset with arch testers if the packages work, we
could use more of them today...)

>
> Could that not be said about comrel? Comrel likely has much less awareness of
> any given recruit than mentors. Comrel is not working them as a mentor would.
> In my experience Comrel has NEVER had any knowledge or awareness of my
> contributions.
>

Well, both the mentor and Comrel have different perspectives.  And
ultimately Comrel doesn't even have the final say since you can appeal
to Council.  No HR-like process will ever be perfect, but there is a
reason we're all on our best behavior during job interviews.

>
> In reality Gentoo could have much worse problems by not being straight with
> the IRS. If that was ever the case, and if someone say me could have corrected
> that. Then comrel/devrel could be directly responsible for some major legal
> issues regarding Gentoo.
>

The Foundation is actually fairly independent from Comrel.  I actually
think it should be less so (not that they should be subject to Comrel
but rather that the Foundation membership should be the same as the
distro dev membership).  However, the reality today is that the
Trustees can retain anybody they wish to assist with taxes/etc.  They
don't need an @gentoo.org address to contribute.  Indeed, they have a
need to retain professional services sometime which are clearly
outside the community.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6022 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 3:40:15 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> As I said, your agreement isn't the concern.  Compliance is the
> concern, and if there is a difference of opinion on that part then it
> is MUCH easier to deal with before making somebody a dev than after.

I cannot comply with things I directly disagree with. More so when I know that 
it has brought harm. If I did not give a crap, sure I can go along. But I do 
care, and I also know better, so I cannot just go along with what I know is 
wrong and strongly disagree with.

Others may not care about Gentoo Java, but I do. Others may not care about 
Gentoo's status with the IRS, other than the IRS, but I do...
 
> Obviously not.  You're making an appeal for change now.  Ultimately it
> is up to the community to decide whether policy ought to change.  You
> don't formally get a vote in that now, but influence matters more than
> votes anyway, IMO.

I am part of the community. That is something people seem to forget. So comrel 
takes action. Does that mean the person is gone from the Gentoo Community?

I have seen several that were kicked remain as a contributors. You really 
cannot get rid of people. They can change email, IP, etc. Which is why I feel 
actions like bans, suspensions, kicking people, does little in the long run. 
Most all can me circumvented...

> Ultimately making somebody a developer is a fairly important decision.
> You can call it distrust if you wish, but it is the sort of thing that
> requires rigor.

It is important technically. This is a technical project not social. All that 
matters is things progress technically. Social should only matter if it hold 
back tech. But in fact its the trying to keep the peace socially that is 
hurting Gentoo and holding it back technology wise.

Exherbo and Funtoo existing do not help Gentoo. Anyone driven away from Gentoo 
still contributes else where. Why not keep them contributing to Gentoo? Only 
Gentoo stands to lose.

> This is no different than the opposite situation.  If a random
> developer decides that you aren't worth keeping around, can they just
> ask infra to revoke your access and give them their word that they're
> sure it is the right thing to do?

Why should anyone be removed per request of another? Why not take it to a vote 
of all members?

Focus should be on preventing and resolving matters rather than punishment...  
Look at the US prison system. People rarely learn from punishment. Most times 
it will just anger them, and cause they to behave worse.

> This is why we have a process.  If there was a past Comrel action
> against you then you're subject to more process than a vanilla
> recruit.  However, your history probably benefits you on the technical
> side.

Even if those past actions were mistaken...

I had more scrutiny as a experienced developer than new recruit. With the past 
having nothing to do with it. Like when I did get into quiz review more time 
was spent than I had reviewing all quizzes years ago.

Part of my complaint there, Gentoo does not have a different recruiting 
process for returning developers or new developers. It should never take that 
long to process a returning developer as it does a new. 

> I can't imagine things were all that different in 2006 than in 2007
> when I became a developer.  I was using Gentoo long before this time
> and at least somewhat involved in the community, though I didn't get
> involved in the politics of that day other than as an arch tester.
> (And nobody gets upset with arch testers if the packages work, we
> could use more of them today...)

Before that time frame there was no exherbo or funtoo.... It sucks some I 
worked with are on both. Gentoo lost out on allot of talent. Things were very 
different in the past, and Gentoo was mainstream and moving forward.

At the present, Gentoo has become an obscure distro, fallen from mainstream. 
That can be due to many factors. But one major factor is Gentoo not progress. 
You can blame it on Ubuntu Arch etc. No other distro is responsible for 
exherbo or funtoo. No other distro is responsible for Java suffering for 
years...

> Well, both the mentor and Comrel have different perspectives.  And
> ultimately Comrel doesn't even have the final say since you can appeal
> to Council.  No HR-like process will ever be perfect, but there is a
> reason we're all on our best behavior during job interviews.

From my experience comrel/recruiting always has the last say. Even if I 
appeal, who processes me after? Comrel and recruiting... There is no getting 
around those two entities.

I even wonder what authority the council has over comrel. What if comrel 
sought to take actions against council members?

> The Foundation is actually fairly independent from Comrel.  I actually
> think it should be less so (not that they should be subject to Comrel
> but rather that the Foundation membership should be the same as the
> distro dev membership).  However, the reality today is that the
> Trustees can retain anybody they wish to assist with taxes/etc.  They
> don't need an @gentoo.org address to contribute.  Indeed, they have a
> need to retain professional services sometime which are clearly
> outside the community.

Gentoo's entire structure is not what it was intended to be. I have spoken to 
Daniel Robbins a few times about this. Things I had in mind long ago with 
changing Gentoo's structure, the foundations role, etc were more in line with 
what he had intended things to be. Though I believe most do not want that, 
likely out of ignorance and status quo, rather than not wanting thing to 
change for the good.

Few projects have structure like Gentoo. Which is also in part why Gentoo has 
unique issues, though they can be similar to others. Still very different just 
the same. I spent time looking into others, FreeBSD, Gnome, Debian, etc.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]

On 03/10/16 22:03, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Gentoo's entire structure is not what it was intended to be. I have spoken to 
> Daniel Robbins a few times about this. Things I had in mind long ago with 
> changing Gentoo's structure, the foundations role, etc were more in line with 
> what he had intended things to be. Though I believe most do not want that, 
> likely out of ignorance and status quo, rather than not wanting thing to 
> change for the good.
> 
> Few projects have structure like Gentoo. Which is also in part why Gentoo has 
> unique issues, though they can be similar to others. Still very different just 
> the same. I spent time looking into others, FreeBSD, Gnome, Debian, etc.

Curious, could you elaborate more on this, or just point to archives if
you already did?

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3187 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 10:30:11 PM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 03/10/16 22:03, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Gentoo's entire structure is not what it was intended to be. I have spoken
> > to Daniel Robbins a few times about this. Things I had in mind long ago
> > with changing Gentoo's structure, the foundations role, etc were more in
> > line with what he had intended things to be. Though I believe most do not
> > want that, likely out of ignorance and status quo, rather than not
> > wanting thing to change for the good.
> > 
> > Few projects have structure like Gentoo. Which is also in part why Gentoo
> > has unique issues, though they can be similar to others. Still very
> > different just the same. I spent time looking into others, FreeBSD,
> > Gnome, Debian, etc.
> Curious, could you elaborate more on this, or just point to archives if
> you already did?

It has been many years.  I will see what I can scrape together. Essentially 
Daniel intended the Foundation to be much stronger and play a much larger role 
in Gentoo. Somehow it was transformed into a IP holder, legal protection, and 
finances. Cut off from development, no relation to council, or project as 
whole. With other projects, the board tends to control and influence technical 
direction more.

Gentoo is some what like a 2 headed snake. Long ago used to be 3, when infra 
was stronger but infra has faded some to where it is just Council and 
Foundation.

This is one of the many things I had plans for but others seem to make fun of 
it. Which despite anything anyone may think. The Gentoo Foundation is a 
business, just a non profit business. Until recently the NFL in the US was also 
a Non-Profit. It does not matter if for profit or not, it is still a business 
and should have some similar structure.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
e3825ceed1a9eabb4d1438e919bdc63a

Best to hear some of it straight from Daniel. If you read this it is pretty 
clear the project nor the foundation ended up as he intended.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
69f1aacf7c96923b7e6faa1eaa7cb0b1

If he returned would like to make major changes. I would agree with most all 
of those major changes, and it has nothing to do with Daniel himself, but 
proper organization and leadership.

Not meant as an insult or to lessen the efforts of any council member or 
trustee. Just that things ended up very different than intended. To get back 
to the initial idea would require lots of change most would not be on board 
with, not to mention the authority aspect given how its structured now.

This is interesting not directly related but comments on how Gentoo started 
and the freedom back then....
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
290945a1127e8e12ff30b75f400a0590

Turns out I do have a semi smoking gun email, but it was a private email 
between Daniel Robbins and myself. I will forward that email onto the list as 
it does not disclose anything sensitive. I think the world should hear it 
straight from Daniel, like him or not, he did start the Gentoo project.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1944 bytes --]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 17:23:17 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 10:30:11 PM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> > On 03/10/16 22:03, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > > Gentoo's entire structure is not what it was intended to be. I have spoken
> > > to Daniel Robbins a few times about this. Things I had in mind long ago
> > > with changing Gentoo's structure, the foundations role, etc were more in
> > > line with what he had intended things to be. Though I believe most do not
> > > want that, likely out of ignorance and status quo, rather than not
> > > wanting thing to change for the good.
> > > 
> > > Few projects have structure like Gentoo. Which is also in part why Gentoo
> > > has unique issues, though they can be similar to others. Still very
> > > different just the same. I spent time looking into others, FreeBSD,
> > > Gnome, Debian, etc.
> > Curious, could you elaborate more on this, or just point to archives if
> > you already did?
> 
> It has been many years.  I will see what I can scrape together. Essentially 
> Daniel intended the Foundation to be much stronger and play a much larger role 
> in Gentoo. Somehow it was transformed into a IP holder, legal protection, and 
> finances. Cut off from development, no relation to council, or project as 
> whole. With other projects, the board tends to control and influence technical 
> direction more.

This is called evolution, so I see no problem that Gentoo evolved
into something different from what was originally planned.
 
> Gentoo is some what like a 2 headed snake. Long ago used to be 3, when infra 
> was stronger but infra has faded some to where it is just Council and 
> Foundation.

This is a separation of power: the legal body is separated from the
technical government. And I find this really great, since Gentoo is
an international community these days.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1762 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:45:56 AM EDT Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> This is called evolution, so I see no problem that Gentoo evolved
> into something different from what was originally planned.

Better worded as a experiment in democratic project leadership I would say 
over all has been a tragic failure. I think the founders of Gentoo would all 
hole heartily agree.

While to evolve things mutate to survive. That is about all Gentoo is doing, 
surviving. It is not thriving. It is not a mainstream distro as it once was. 
Leadership keeps a project mainstream no other factors.

> > Gentoo is some what like a 2 headed snake. Long ago used to be 3, when
> > infra was stronger but infra has faded some to where it is just Council
> > and Foundation.
> 
> This is a separation of power: the legal body is separated from the
> technical government. And I find this really great, since Gentoo is
> an international community these days.

You simply do not understand. You are asking people to be a legal 
representative for something they have no control or influence over.

Comrel could do something that causes legal action on the Foundation the 
Trustees would have to deal with. Same with regard to the Council. The 
foundation can do NOTHING to prevent either. The Foundation has no control or 
influence over Comrel or Recruiting. Yet they oversee the community it is 
legally responsible for.

It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. Which is 
why others rise as Gentoo falls. Go look around. Find any organization that 
has the same structure as Gentoo. I never found anything close.  I doubt 
anyone else would either, but I welcome such if it exists.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:52 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> Comrel could do something that causes legal action on the Foundation the
> Trustees would have to deal with. Same with regard to the Council. The
> foundation can do NOTHING to prevent either. The Foundation has no control or
> influence over Comrel or Recruiting. Yet they oversee the community it is
> legally responsible for.
>

I'm not sure why Comrel or the Council would want to take an action
that could cause legal problems for the Foundation, or why the
Trustees would be any less likely to do the same.

I do prefer some kind of consolidated structure, but before that could
happen there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved:

1.  How do we reconcile the differing membership of the developer and
Foundation communities?
2.  If only one body is ultimately in charge, what kinds of qualities
do we want in its leadership?  Ultimately they'd have authority over
both technical and financial concerns (in reality, no matter what you
put on paper).  Does it make more sense to elect a financial board and
have them have oversight over the technical side?  Or does it make
sense to have a technical board, and have them have oversight of the
financial side?  Or do we go for both in one (which means finding
people who are both competent and interested in dealing with both)?  I
think the reality is that you need both in one to some degree, since
all issues would ultimately fall on them.
3.  How should the organization be structured internationally?
Ultimately there is one distro and when it comes to technical matters
I think there is not a lot of regional variation.  However, when it
comes to legal issues I could more easily see regional issues arising.
We've already had some logistical challenges when there are a lot of
non-US-residents involved in the Foundation, since while they're
completely welcome as far as the community is concerned, it makes it
harder when banks/governments/businesses are asking for tax IDs and
domestic addresses such.

> It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. Which is
> why others rise as Gentoo falls.

This is a non-sequitur.

While I do think that some kind of reform might be beneficial, I don't
really see it having any significant impact on where Gentoo stands in
the "marketplace" of distros.

I think the reality is that Gentoo works better for me today than it
ever has in the past.  I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there
are some niches where this is not the case (like Java), but I don't
really have your sense of doom.  I don't think it is likely that a
distro like Gentoo will ever compete with the likes of Ubuntu (which
has taken over most of the casual side of the Linux space which used
to be split more with projects like Debian, creating more of a path
into the more exotic distros like Gentoo).  I don't really have a
problem with that either, since if somebody has a problem that can be
solved with Ubuntu, then they might as well solve it with Ubuntu and
not worry about the details unless they really want to.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7892 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 6:12:16 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:52 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > Comrel could do something that causes legal action on the Foundation the
> > Trustees would have to deal with. Same with regard to the Council. The
> > foundation can do NOTHING to prevent either. The Foundation has no control
> > or influence over Comrel or Recruiting. Yet they oversee the community it
> > is legally responsible for.
> 
> I'm not sure why Comrel or the Council would want to take an action
> that could cause legal problems for the Foundation, or why the
> Trustees would be any less likely to do the same.

I never said want. I said they could take action which may bring about legal 
recourse, liability. More than likely it would be unintentionally. In most 
businesses action is not taken without consulting the legal department.  There 
might be legal recourse to any action a company may take. Against an 
individual or in general. Gentoo is a business, a non profit business, subject 
to the same laws.

Example,
Say a developer decided to file a defamation law suit, due to how they were 
treated by say comrel. The foundation would have no part in this process or 
mess but have to deal with the legal fall out of such.

I was discussing something like that with Robin Johnson Friday night. He 
presented a great scenario, even more complex based on local law...

> I do prefer some kind of consolidated structure, but before that could
> happen there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved:
> 
> 1.  How do we reconcile the differing membership of the developer and
> Foundation communities?

In most other projects, the foundation/board controls the direction of 
development. Best examples are Gnome and FreeBSD, maybe Debian.

 I think FreeBSD is the best example given its age.

> 2.  If only one body is ultimately in charge, what kinds of qualities
> do we want in its leadership?  Ultimately they'd have authority over
> both technical and financial concerns (in reality, no matter what you
> put on paper).  Does it make more sense to elect a financial board and
> have them have oversight over the technical side?  Or does it make
> sense to have a technical board, and have them have oversight of the
> financial side?  Or do we go for both in one (which means finding
> people who are both competent and interested in dealing with both)?  I
> think the reality is that you need both in one to some degree, since
> all issues would ultimately fall on them.

Typically finances follow development. In other projects like Gnome board 
members tend to be businesses. Which I assume if they agree with direction 
help provide further funding.

Funding always follows development. People will not just randomly give you 
money and see what you produce. That said if what you are producing they like 
and can use, they will fund further.

But Gentoo like all things has to have a plan of what to do with the money. A 
need that having the finances would help further the project. There need be no 
committee for finances. They have no say in anything just pay the bills.

I have never seen any business run by the finance department or accounting.

> 3.  How should the organization be structured internationally?
> Ultimately there is one distro and when it comes to technical matters
> I think there is not a lot of regional variation.  However, when it
> comes to legal issues I could more easily see regional issues arising.
> We've already had some logistical challenges when there are a lot of
> non-US-residents involved in the Foundation, since while they're
> completely welcome as far as the community is concerned, it makes it
> harder when banks/governments/businesses are asking for tax IDs and
> domestic addresses such.

In the past there were some Gentoo legal entities established in other 
countries. Even for profit businesses do that now for operations outside the 
US. Granted allot for tax havens, soon to be a thing of the past, sorry 
Apple...

That may be the case for Gentoo, but it would have a parent organization with 
local subsidiaries.  But I think that is pretty extreme. I am not aware of any 
others establishing subsidiary local but I could be wrong. Pretty sure there 
is just the 1 Debian, FreeBSD, Gnome, etc. They all face the same 
international issue.

> > It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. Which
> > is why others rise as Gentoo falls.
> 
> This is a non-sequitur.

Given I have never found any other business or project structured like Gentoo, 
it seems pretty accurate. Even Daniel said how things ended up is not what was 
intended. That is damn near the definition of perversion.

> While I do think that some kind of reform might be beneficial, I don't
> really see it having any significant impact on where Gentoo stands in
> the "marketplace" of distros.

Limited vision... Gentoo should be playing a major role in open source 
integration.

I bet most do not know that most of RedHat's Java development efforts, IcedTea 
project take place on Gentoo not RedHat.

For those that missed it, IcedTea/OpenJDK Linux Development, that RedHat pays 
to have developed. Takes place on Gentoo.

I have tried getting Dr Andrew John Hughes, gnu_andrew to become a developer. 
He is interested and willing. However the ONLY thing he will work on is open 
source java, The JDK/JRE itself, IcedTea. He will NEVER work in any other area 
or on any other packages. He is employed by RedHat.

I cannot see him ever doing the quizzes, or going through the normal 
recruitment. In my opinion he should not have to. Gentoo should treat him as 
special and help get him on board.

I bet most of comrel/recruiting has no awareness of him... Many on Gentoo 
likely do not either. But that fact that Open Source Java JDK/JRE development 
takes place on Gentoo should matter. Gentoo always has the latest stuff there, 
but sadly resides in the Java overlay. Which little to no one uses, nor is 
aware of what I just said...

> I think the reality is that Gentoo works better for me today than it
> ever has in the past.  

Your not using Java, or using enterprise apps, much of which are Java.

> I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there
> are some niches where this is not the case (like Java), but I don't
> really have your sense of doom.

Java is far from  a niche. Usually only enterprise size organizations have 
stuff in Java because it is not trivial.

> I don't think it is likely that a
> distro like Gentoo will ever compete with the likes of Ubuntu (which
> has taken over most of the casual side of the Linux space which used
> to be split more with projects like Debian, creating more of a path
> into the more exotic distros like Gentoo).  I don't really have a
> problem with that either, since if somebody has a problem that can be
> solved with Ubuntu, then they might as well solve it with Ubuntu and
> not worry about the details unless they really want to.

Google used to base Chome OS off Ubuntu but is been using Gentoo for some 
time. Google has a for sale operating system based on Gentoo.... Chromebooks 
have sold well. Google may have sold more Chrome books, than any other company 
shipping with Ubuntu or other, If you can find manufacturers who will ship a 
laptop with Ubuntu...

CoreOS is also based on Gentoo...

Gentoo can do things other distros can never. Thus there is no reason for 
Gentoo to not be equal to or ahead of others. Gentoo can do more to further 
FOSS development than any other.

Which is why IcedTea development takes place on Gentoo instead of RedHat, 
Ubuntu or others. When I interacted with core Firebird RDBMS developers, they 
also ran Gentoo...

For FOSS development, next to like maybe BSD, there is not really much better 
than Gentoo...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 6:12:16 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> 1.  How do we reconcile the differing membership of the developer and
>> Foundation communities?
>
> In most other projects, the foundation/board controls the direction of
> development. Best examples are Gnome and FreeBSD, maybe Debian.

That is nice, but I didn't talk about reconciling the boards, but the
membership: the people voting for the boards.  There are devs who
aren't Foundation members, and there are Foundation members who aren't
devs.  The former is easy to handle (devs can juts apply to become
members).  The latter is harder to handle (do we start automatically
kicking members as soon as they're no longer developers?  If not, you
now have a distro whose direction has more outside control by people
who don't necessarily have the same stake in it.

>> 2.  If only one body is ultimately in charge, what kinds of qualities
>> do we want in its leadership?  Ultimately they'd have authority over
>> both technical and financial concerns (in reality, no matter what you
>> put on paper).  Does it make more sense to elect a financial board and
>> have them have oversight over the technical side?  Or does it make
>> sense to have a technical board, and have them have oversight of the
>> financial side?  Or do we go for both in one (which means finding
>> people who are both competent and interested in dealing with both)?  I
>> think the reality is that you need both in one to some degree, since
>> all issues would ultimately fall on them.
>
> Typically finances follow development. In other projects like Gnome board
> members tend to be businesses. Which I assume if they agree with direction
> help provide further funding.

Again, that doesn't really speak to the qualities of the leadership.

Should a board member be good at legal stuff (so that the lawsuits and
such you speak of don't happen)?  Or should they be better at
technical stuff (since they have the power to override everybody else
on technical matters?  Or do we need people who want to do both?  Will
both areas get the proper attention when people's efforts are divided
across them, vs having a group of people whose only job is to ensure
the IRS is happy and that we're following the law, and so on?  If
you're concerned that either the Council or the Trustees aren't doing
their job right, then splitting the effort of one board across both
areas is hardly going to improve things, since there is no obvious
synergy.

Note that neither the council nor the Foundation currently sets any
kind of direction for Gentoo.  They decide on overall policies, but
where Gentoo invests tends to be up to the individual contributors.
If we have a lot of Java contributors, then we probably have a lot of
Java packages.  If we don't have any, then you have the state we're in
now.  We don't have limits on how many people we take, where we need
to prioritize how many people we "hire" for this or that.  Ultimately
we accept anybody who meets the criteria.

>> > It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. Which
>> > is why others rise as Gentoo falls.
>>
>> This is a non-sequitur.
>
> Given I have never found any other business or project structured like Gentoo,
> it seems pretty accurate. Even Daniel said how things ended up is not what was
> intended. That is damn near the definition of perversion.

I didn't say it wasn't "perverted."  I said that your statement is a
non-sequitur.

You suggest that the structure is the cause of us not being as great
as you think Gentoo would otherwise be.  I don't think you've made a
convincing argument that a re-org is really going to change things.

I've yet to see somebody say "I'd love to donate more of my
world-class effort to Gentoo, but man the way those Trustees work is
just so off-putting."  Most candidate devs could care less about the
way the Trustees are set up.

>
>> While I do think that some kind of reform might be beneficial, I don't
>> really see it having any significant impact on where Gentoo stands in
>> the "marketplace" of distros.
>
> Limited vision... Gentoo should be playing a major role in open source
> integration.

Sounds great, but I don't see how its meta-structure is hindering this.

>
> I cannot see him ever doing the quizzes, or going through the normal
> recruitment. In my opinion he should not have to. Gentoo should treat him as
> special and help get him on board.

Is he even interested in being a Gentoo developer?  What is in it for
him?  And if it is just altruism why couldn't he be bothered with the
quizzes?

>
> For FOSS development, next to like maybe BSD, there is not really much better
> than Gentoo...
>

No argument.  So, if we've already conquered the world, what is the problem?

I think there are various reasons that it might be ideal to fix the
meta-structure.  However, I don't think it will improve much in how
the day-to-day Gentoo experience is felt, and it could very well be a
distraction from other things that actually do improve the day-to-day
experience.  The things you're expressing concerns about (few people
care about maintaining Java in the Gentoo repo) aren't going to be
solved by changing how the Foundation works.  It isn't like re-orging
the Foundation/Council is going to make the CoC go away, or that the
values of a majority of the devs are going to change when they vote
for whoever ends up being in charge.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8774 bytes --]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 11:07:26 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:

> That is nice, but I didn't talk about reconciling the boards, but the
> membership: the people voting for the boards.  There are devs who
> aren't Foundation members, and there are Foundation members who aren't
> devs.  The former is easy to handle (devs can juts apply to become
> members).  

Or the Trustees ratify the By Laws so developers and staff members are 
automatically granted membership in the foundation.

In hind site during By Law review, I am not sure why such was not considered 
and adopted from the start. I cannot see it making sense for membership to not 
be automatically granted. Seems only members of the community should need to 
apply.

Before the By Laws were adopted when I was elected. That came from a vote from 
developers not foundation members. I think this continued separation between 
Developer and Foundation is pointless.

> The latter is harder to handle (do we start automatically
> kicking members as soon as they're no longer developers?  If not, you
> now have a distro whose direction has more outside control by people
> who don't necessarily have the same stake in it.

Kicking members would be up to the board. It is not related to any action else 
where at this time. If your concerned about more outside than in, the problem 
is easily solved by having more inside than out.

At the same time being a community project, being lead by community, inside or 
out is not a bad thing. It depends on who is being served.

> Again, that doesn't really speak to the qualities of the leadership.
> 
> Should a board member be good at legal stuff (so that the lawsuits and
> such you speak of don't happen)?

Well bad things happened in the past when people without skills were doing 
things they were not qualified for. Like accounting, legal filings, etc.

> Or should they be better at
> technical stuff (since they have the power to override everybody else
> on technical matters?  

If they are to over see technical matters, then yes technical skill.

> Or do we need people who want to do both? 

In an ideal world, but it depends really on the task. They should have some 
skill. That also pertains to comrel, they should have good human relation 
skills.

> Will
> both areas get the proper attention when people's efforts are divided
> across them, vs having a group of people whose only job is to ensure
> the IRS is happy and that we're following the law, and so on?

There is something called Delegation. Seems the foundation is looking to do 
more with outside Officers. At the same time if needed some aspects can be 
handed off to entities like the SPI. Which is who Debian uses but not FreeBSD 
or Gnome. 
http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/

> If
> you're concerned that either the Council or the Trustees aren't doing
> their job right, then splitting the effort of one board across both
> areas is hardly going to improve things, since there is no obvious
> synergy.

Then how does it work for most every business out there in the world? Boards 
tend to oversee most everything. 

> Note that neither the council nor the Foundation currently sets any
> kind of direction for Gentoo.

Which then leads to the question, who leads Gentoo? Where is Gentoo going if 
neither Foundation nor Council sets the direction?

> They decide on overall policies, but
> where Gentoo invests tends to be up to the individual contributors.

I am not sure that model has worked out. Other approaches can be tried if 
people have more open minds.

> If we have a lot of Java contributors, then we probably have a lot of
> Java packages.  If we don't have any, then you have the state we're in
> now.  

Yes and no. When things are let to rot, it makes the situation much worse. 
People in technology are not attracted to outdated stuff. They are not going 
to come along and want to spend considerable amount of time bringing that 
current. They will simply let outdated inactive things die....

> We don't have limits on how many people we take, where we need
> to prioritize how many people we "hire" for this or that.  Ultimately
> we accept anybody who meets the criteria.

Gentoo may benefit from some of all of that...


> I didn't say it wasn't "perverted."  I said that your statement is a
> non-sequitur.

Assuming your usage was one more of humor than of logical fallacy. It can be 
taken in different ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

> You suggest that the structure is the cause of us not being as great
> as you think Gentoo would otherwise be.  I don't think you've made a
> convincing argument that a re-org is really going to change things.

No, I defer to Daniels comments from 2008. With good intention Gentoo became 
an experiment in Democracy. I am not trying to convince people but bring facts 
to light. People can come to their own conclusion. Though it seems in time 
Daniels words may become more true.

I think most are realizing on their own accord that many of these ideas for 
the good just do not work.

> I've yet to see somebody say "I'd love to donate more of my
> world-class effort to Gentoo, but man the way those Trustees work is
> just so off-putting."  Most candidate devs could care less about the
> way the Trustees are set up.

The way things are now, but people go to work and volunteer for many 
organizations lead by a board. A board can be inspiring and attract others 
either directly or indirectly, usually the latter. It is part of the purpose 
of most boards.

> Sounds great, but I don't see how its meta-structure is hindering this.

How is it helping? Is Gentoo growing? Is open source software growing?

> > I cannot see him ever doing the quizzes, or going through the normal
> > recruitment. In my opinion he should not have to. Gentoo should treat him
> > as special and help get him on board.
> 
> Is he even interested in being a Gentoo developer?  What is in it for
> him?  And if it is just altruism why couldn't he be bothered with the
> quizzes?

Yes, but not in the sense we consider. Nothing is in it for him, consider that 
for a moment. It benefits GENTOO not the person. Gentoo needs to do more to 
benefit itself, and make it easier for people to contribute who would get 
nothing themselves.

RedHat is not going to pay him to take Gentoo Quizzes or deal with a Gentoo 
Recruiter.

Let me restate the non sense with quizzes. He would not be contributing in any 
other area. He maintains Open Source Java for the World. RedHat pays him for 
his Java efforts, that every distro benefits from. He has nothing to gain from 
being a Gentoo Developer. Much of what Gentoo benefits from his effort is paid 
on the clock work for RedHat. If he did the quizzes and the rest it would 
likely fall to personal time. Gentoo is lucky to have his efforts to being 
with. Which have to be proxied by tree.

Anytime anyone is wondering why Icedtea or anything is not newer on Gentoo. Is 
only because it has not been moved from the Java overlay to tree. Given the 
FACT that IcedTea, Open Source Java Development of the JDK/JRE takes place on 
Gentoo for every distro....

Gentoo get's it first in an overlay rather than in tree. If he was a developer. 
Gentoo would get it in tree before every distro, including Fedora, and RedHat, 
Paid for by RedHat.... How is that not a good thing?

> > For FOSS development, next to like maybe BSD, there is not really much
> > better than Gentoo...
> 
> No argument.  So, if we've already conquered the world, what is the problem?

Ship has had hole and taking on water. People have been bailing, others coming 
along for a ride not realizing the holes below deck....

> I think there are various reasons that it might be ideal to fix the
> meta-structure.  However, I don't think it will improve much in how
> the day-to-day Gentoo experience is felt, and it could very well be a
> distraction from other things that actually do improve the day-to-day
> experience.  The things you're expressing concerns about (few people
> care about maintaining Java in the Gentoo repo) aren't going to be
> solved by changing how the Foundation works.  It isn't like re-orging
> the Foundation/Council is going to make the CoC go away, or that the
> values of a majority of the devs are going to change when they vote
> for whoever ends up being in charge.

Again limited vision. Changing aspects of Gentoo's structure getting 
leadership, focus, etc. That could benefit every aspect of Gentoo. You can see 
it either way, it could effect things for the worse or better.

But really I am not sure Gentoo can get worse in many ways. In some aspects 
its pretty bad, people just are not aware or haven't that needed or moved on 
as most have...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

On 04/10/16 06:26, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Which then leads to the question, who leads Gentoo? Where is Gentoo going if 
> neither Foundation nor Council sets the direction?

I don't think we have direction in a Chief Architect sense. I believe it
has some drawbacks.

Could you elaborate more how do you see leadership in a volunteer
organization like Gentoo?

> Gentoo get's it first in an overlay rather than in tree. If he was a developer. 
> Gentoo would get it in tree before every distro, including Fedora, and RedHat, 
> Paid for by RedHat.... How is that not a good thing?

I'd be all for such technical contribution, which I see would be much
more effective having direct commit rights.

I'm not sure if it's really all-or-nothing there. It may be feasible to
become a Gentoo developer and make Java on Gentoo great again, but put
aside the attempt to fix everything you disagree with in Gentoo at least
for a while (even where I think you do have a good point). As just an
observer, I don't see both things being possible at this moment though.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5622 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:34:26 PM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 04/10/16 06:26, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Which then leads to the question, who leads Gentoo? Where is Gentoo going
> > if neither Foundation nor Council sets the direction?
> 
> I don't think we have direction in a Chief Architect sense. I believe it
> has some drawbacks.

Everything does, but most successful projects and companies tend to have 
singular leadership. Gentoo was created and rose to popularity under a Chief 
Architect structure. The experiment in more Democratic Utopian structure may 
be responsible for its decline in popularity.

For most things returning to your roots is not always a bad thing. Many go 
through identity and organization crisis. Look at Apple without Steve Jobs 
return. Had Apple never brought him back, where would the company be now?

> Could you elaborate more how do you see leadership in a volunteer
> organization like Gentoo?

Many do not like it, but I have always compared it to something like the 
RedCross. That had a mix of paid and unpaid positions.

I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PAYING MYSELF then or now!!!

That being said, I feel Gentoo could benefit from some paid stuff, like say a 
monthly news letter, maybe aspects of infra, staff, etc.

When people are 100% volunteers, I think it makes direction hard. How can I 
tell you what needs to be done? Will you even care? Will you spend YOUR time 
to make changes I want to have happen?

In the perspective of say a Cheif Architect but could be the council. Say the 
council wants Java to move a given direction. Who will do the work? Even if we 
agree it needs to be done. Someone has to do it, and sometimes that may fall 
to someone paid vs volunteer. After all a paid person if they do not do as 
requested/told. They are no longer paid and someone else is... You cannot 
treat volunteers as such. You cannot expect things from a volunteer, only be 
thankful for their contributions.

Now saying this is very precarious. Who gets paid, how much, etc. Tons of 
details to be worked out. It was just ideas I had long ago when I had more 
interest in participating in the foundation. Now most my ideas or just 
utopian. If others want to make them happen, I can share all my ideas and 
thoughts. But I do not see myself going down that path again. It was VERY bad 
for me.

Regardless of the paying aspect. Gentoo needs a unified leadership, that does 
not change year after year, that has long term strategy and plans in mind. 
What is best for Gentoo over 5, 10, 20 years. Like FreeBSD having been around 
for some ~30 years.

Most any company, nation, etc has terms for their leaders beyond a single 
year. Direction would flip flop to much to swap out leadership.

It may be best to have a chief architect and some top levels that do not 
change. Then a council below, who can pass on community things, so there is a 
balance between community and leadership on direction.

But what if a council decisions is not liked, Can you appeal that? I think 
having a head of any organization can help solve many problems. That sometimes 
groups cannot. At the same time it can create many more problems just the 
same. But most companies have 1 president, 1 CEO, and that is for a reason. 
The board tends to work with them, but they tend to be ultimately responsible.

I also do not see anything uniting say Foundation/Trustees and Council other 
than some sort of head to the leadership. It could be the Trustees are placed 
over, as they are not, the officers. A CEO position or Chief Architect may be 
created to be beneath the Trustees/Foundation, but above the Council.

Something so Gentoo has 1 unified head that works together collectively. Rather 
than in their own silos.

> > Gentoo get's it first in an overlay rather than in tree. If he was a
> > developer. Gentoo would get it in tree before every distro, including
> > Fedora, and RedHat, Paid for by RedHat.... How is that not a good thing?
> 
> I'd be all for such technical contribution, which I see would be much
> more effective having direct commit rights.

I think in cases, there should be exceptions to the recruiting process. Which 
Dr Andrew John Hughes would be such an exception.

Working on a single ebuild, but a VERY large, complex and important one, 
IcedTea/OpenJDK for every Linux distro.... Having him committing that directly 
on Gentoo may attract more that are wanting to take part in the development of 
the Java JDK itself.

> I'm not sure if it's really all-or-nothing there. It may be feasible to
> become a Gentoo developer and make Java on Gentoo great again, but put
> aside the attempt to fix everything you disagree with in Gentoo at least
> for a while (even where I think you do have a good point). As just an
> observer, I don't see both things being possible at this moment though.

I am not out to change all of Gentoo. Even if I regain status as a developer 
my focus is just on technical stuff. I have no incentive for the rest and it 
cost me quite allot over the years. I am not eager to repeat or even chance 
such.

That said, Gentoo has needed, and does need desperately need major change. 
Though over the years most are ok with status quo and not eager to make major 
changes, if they feel they are even necessary.

Fixing things in any 1 area is great, but if not addressing larger issues as a 
whole. It will just be chasing and putting out fires rather than really moving 
things forward.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

What if the "chief architect" were elected democratically?

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:40 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. 
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:34:26 PM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
>>  On 04/10/16 06:26, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>  > Which then leads to the question, who leads Gentoo? Where is 
>> Gentoo going
>>  > if neither Foundation nor Council sets the direction?
>> 
>>  I don't think we have direction in a Chief Architect sense. I 
>> believe it
>>  has some drawbacks.
> 
> Everything does, but most successful projects and companies tend to 
> have
> singular leadership. Gentoo was created and rose to popularity under 
> a Chief
> Architect structure. The experiment in more Democratic Utopian 
> structure may
> be responsible for its decline in popularity.
> 
> For most things returning to your roots is not always a bad thing. 
> Many go
> through identity and organization crisis. Look at Apple without Steve 
> Jobs
> return. Had Apple never brought him back, where would the company be 
> now?
> 
>>  Could you elaborate more how do you see leadership in a volunteer
>>  organization like Gentoo?
> 
> Many do not like it, but I have always compared it to something like 
> the
> RedCross. That had a mix of paid and unpaid positions.
> 
> I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PAYING MYSELF then or now!!!
> 
> That being said, I feel Gentoo could benefit from some paid stuff, 
> like say a
> monthly news letter, maybe aspects of infra, staff, etc.
> 
> When people are 100% volunteers, I think it makes direction hard. How 
> can I
> tell you what needs to be done? Will you even care? Will you spend 
> YOUR time
> to make changes I want to have happen?
> 
> In the perspective of say a Cheif Architect but could be the council. 
> Say the
> council wants Java to move a given direction. Who will do the work? 
> Even if we
> agree it needs to be done. Someone has to do it, and sometimes that 
> may fall
> to someone paid vs volunteer. After all a paid person if they do not 
> do as
> requested/told. They are no longer paid and someone else is... You 
> cannot
> treat volunteers as such. You cannot expect things from a volunteer, 
> only be
> thankful for their contributions.
> 
> Now saying this is very precarious. Who gets paid, how much, etc. 
> Tons of
> details to be worked out. It was just ideas I had long ago when I had 
> more
> interest in participating in the foundation. Now most my ideas or just
> utopian. If others want to make them happen, I can share all my ideas 
> and
> thoughts. But I do not see myself going down that path again. It was 
> VERY bad
> for me.
> 
> Regardless of the paying aspect. Gentoo needs a unified leadership, 
> that does
> not change year after year, that has long term strategy and plans in 
> mind.
> What is best for Gentoo over 5, 10, 20 years. Like FreeBSD having 
> been around
> for some ~30 years.
> 
> Most any company, nation, etc has terms for their leaders beyond a 
> single
> year. Direction would flip flop to much to swap out leadership.
> 
> It may be best to have a chief architect and some top levels that do 
> not
> change. Then a council below, who can pass on community things, so 
> there is a
> balance between community and leadership on direction.
> 
> But what if a council decisions is not liked, Can you appeal that? I 
> think
> having a head of any organization can help solve many problems. That 
> sometimes
> groups cannot. At the same time it can create many more problems just 
> the
> same. But most companies have 1 president, 1 CEO, and that is for a 
> reason.
> The board tends to work with them, but they tend to be ultimately 
> responsible.
> 
> I also do not see anything uniting say Foundation/Trustees and 
> Council other
> than some sort of head to the leadership. It could be the Trustees 
> are placed
> over, as they are not, the officers. A CEO position or Chief 
> Architect may be
> created to be beneath the Trustees/Foundation, but above the Council.
> 
> Something so Gentoo has 1 unified head that works together 
> collectively. Rather
> than in their own silos.
> 
>>  > Gentoo get's it first in an overlay rather than in tree. If he 
>> was a
>>  > developer. Gentoo would get it in tree before every distro, 
>> including
>>  > Fedora, and RedHat, Paid for by RedHat.... How is that not a good 
>> thing?
>> 
>>  I'd be all for such technical contribution, which I see would be 
>> much
>>  more effective having direct commit rights.
> 
> I think in cases, there should be exceptions to the recruiting 
> process. Which
> Dr Andrew John Hughes would be such an exception.
> 
> Working on a single ebuild, but a VERY large, complex and important 
> one,
> IcedTea/OpenJDK for every Linux distro.... Having him committing that 
> directly
> on Gentoo may attract more that are wanting to take part in the 
> development of
> the Java JDK itself.
> 
>>  I'm not sure if it's really all-or-nothing there. It may be 
>> feasible to
>>  become a Gentoo developer and make Java on Gentoo great again, but 
>> put
>>  aside the attempt to fix everything you disagree with in Gentoo at 
>> least
>>  for a while (even where I think you do have a good point). As just 
>> an
>>  observer, I don't see both things being possible at this moment 
>> though.
> 
> I am not out to change all of Gentoo. Even if I regain status as a 
> developer
> my focus is just on technical stuff. I have no incentive for the rest 
> and it
> cost me quite allot over the years. I am not eager to repeat or even 
> chance
> such.
> 
> That said, Gentoo has needed, and does need desperately need major 
> change.
> Though over the years most are ok with status quo and not eager to 
> make major
> changes, if they feel they are even necessary.
> 
> Fixing things in any 1 area is great, but if not addressing larger 
> issues as a
> whole. It will just be chasing and putting out fires rather than 
> really moving
> things forward.
> 
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1760 bytes --]

On 10/03/2016 03:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I have tried getting Dr Andrew John Hughes, gnu_andrew to become a developer. 
> He is interested and willing. However the ONLY thing he will work on is open 
> source java, The JDK/JRE itself, IcedTea. He will NEVER work in any other area 
> or on any other packages. He is employed by RedHat.
> 
> I cannot see him ever doing the quizzes, or going through the normal 
> recruitment. In my opinion he should not have to. Gentoo should treat him as 
> special and help get him on board.

I disagree with this. If someone is getting push permissions on the
Gentoo repository, they need to have a strong understanding of ebuilds
and be able to prove it like the rest of us. Being technically competent
and a social "match" are important to the project.

I have no doubt that he and probably even you would be great additions
to Gentoo; especially in Java land. But it would be unfair to everyone
else if someone were to be _given_ developer status.

I used to believe the recruitment process was stupid, until I went
through it. The tests serve as self-made notes on ebuild development,
and are a good reminder that you "made it". I wouldn't have gained as
much knowledge about Gentoo had I not gone through the recruitment and
testing process. It was possibly a bit more arduous and time-consuming
than I'd like, but nobody at Gentoo to my knowledge gets paid for what
they do and it'd be unfair of me to chastize the people who help induct
more developers into Gentoo. Without them, I likely wouldn't have become
a developer.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. 
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:45:56 AM EDT Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> 
>>  This is called evolution, so I see no problem that Gentoo evolved
>>  into something different from what was originally planned.
> 
> Better worded as a experiment in democratic project leadership I 
> would say
> over all has been a tragic failure. I think the founders of Gentoo 
> would all
> hole heartily agree.

The only comment I have right now...

What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their 
projects as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a whole 
reserved the right to recall the lead if they don't like how the 
project is being managed?

This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such as 
the recent fight between games and council) that aren't responsive to 
the needs of the gentoo community.

I like democracy, but who should the voters be?

> While to evolve things mutate to survive. That is about all Gentoo is 
> doing,
> surviving. It is not thriving. It is not a mainstream distro as it 
> once was.
> Leadership keeps a project mainstream no other factors.
> 
>>  > Gentoo is some what like a 2 headed snake. Long ago used to be 3, 
>> when
>>  > infra was stronger but infra has faded some to where it is just 
>> Council
>>  > and Foundation.
>> 
>>  This is a separation of power: the legal body is separated from the
>>  technical government. And I find this really great, since Gentoo is
>>  an international community these days.
> 
> You simply do not understand. You are asking people to be a legal
> representative for something they have no control or influence over.
> 
> Comrel could do something that causes legal action on the Foundation 
> the
> Trustees would have to deal with. Same with regard to the Council. The
> foundation can do NOTHING to prevent either. The Foundation has no 
> control or
> influence over Comrel or Recruiting. Yet they oversee the community 
> it is
> legally responsible for.
> 
> It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. 
> Which is
> why others rise as Gentoo falls. Go look around. Find any 
> organization that
> has the same structure as Gentoo. I never found anything close.  I 
> doubt
> anyone else would either, but I welcome such if it exists.
> 
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Gregory Woodbury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The only comment I have right now...
>
> What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their projects
> as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a whole reserved the
> right to recall the lead if they don't like how the project is being
> managed?
>
> This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such as
> the recent fight between games and council) that aren't responsive to the
> needs of the gentoo community.
>
> I like democracy, but who should the voters be?
>
>
Well, that is, to me, a large part of the problem.

The social/political structure of Gentoo is based on a status of
being an "accredited developer."  Meaning that there are hoops to jump
through to prove that one has a sufficiently advanced technical
ability, and an ability to work within the rules.  This restriction on
who gets a vote or not makes the situation into one of conservative
vs. progressive: restricted voting rights are associated with corporate
cultures that are inherently conservative. They are often more concerned
with maintaining a "status quo" than in moving forward.

This is *exactly* what and why these conversations are taking place
here and now.


-- 
G.Wolfe Woodbury
redwolfe@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2357 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

Yes, Gentoo is kinda democratic because the projects elect their own 
leads.

Questions:

1.  How to handle superprojects that are themselves composed of 
subprojects and may or may not have their own non-project members?  
Should the subprojects get to vote?  If so, do we just count the votes 
of each project's lead (probably elected bottom up), or all the 
project's members?

2.  If a project gets stagnant and "implodes into a ball of stiff stale 
tar" through complacency, should the gentoo developer community as a 
whole have veto power to be able to oust the lead?

I'm kinda in favor of 2, just for the sake of keeping project leads 
accountable for making sure that the project exists to benefit gentoo 
as a whole.  And it would work for any project that goes off course 
from the needs of the whole community...and not just "hot button" 
projects like comrel or whatever.

IIRC we already have leads elected by the members of the project to 
have accountability to the project and the needs of its membres, but 
what about the accountability of the project to the gentoo community as 
a whole?

Bosses and leads provide organization and structure and a clear path of 
responsibility.

As for 1, I think that making a project part of another 
project...hmm...who decides that?

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gregory Woodbury <redwolfe@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> The only comment I have right now...
>> 
>> What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their 
>> projects as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a 
>> whole reserved the right to recall the lead if they don't like how 
>> the project is being managed?
>> 
>> This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such 
>> as the recent fight between games and council) that aren't 
>> responsive to the needs of the gentoo community.
>> 
>> I like democracy, but who should the voters be?
>> 
> 
> Well, that is, to me, a large part of the problem.
> 
> The social/political structure of Gentoo is based on a status of
> being an "accredited developer."  Meaning that there are hoops to jump
> through to prove that one has a sufficiently advanced technical
> ability, and an ability to work within the rules.  This restriction on
> who gets a vote or not makes the situation into one of conservative
> vs. progressive: restricted voting rights are associated with 
> corporate
> cultures that are inherently conservative. They are often more 
> concerned
> with maintaining a "status quo" than in moving forward.
> 
> This is *exactly* what and why these conversations are taking place
> here and now.
> 
> 
> --
> G.Wolfe Woodbury
> redwolfe@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6476 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 03:14 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Yes, Gentoo is kinda democratic because the projects elect their own leads.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1.  How to handle superprojects that are themselves composed of
> subprojects and may or may not have their own non-project members? 
> Should the subprojects get to vote?  If so, do we just count the votes
> of each project's lead (probably elected bottom up), or all the
> project's members?
> 
> 2.  If a project gets stagnant and "implodes into a ball of stiff stale
> tar" through complacency, should the gentoo developer community as a
> whole have veto power to be able to oust the lead?
> 
> I'm kinda in favor of 2, just for the sake of keeping project leads
> accountable for making sure that the project exists to benefit gentoo as
> a whole.  And it would work for any project that goes off course from
> the needs of the whole community...and not just "hot button" projects
> like comrel or whatever.
> 
> IIRC we already have leads elected by the members of the project to have
> accountability to the project and the needs of its membres, but what
> about the accountability of the project to the gentoo community as a whole?
> 
> Bosses and leads provide organization and structure and a clear path of
> responsibility.
> 
> As for 1, I think that making a project part of another
> project...hmm...who decides that?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gregory Woodbury <redwolfe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The only comment I have right now...
>>>
>>> What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their
>>> projects as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a
>>> whole reserved the right to recall the lead if they don't like how
>>> the project is being managed?
>>>
>>> This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such
>>> as the recent fight between games and council) that aren't responsive
>>> to the needs of the gentoo community.
>>>
>>> I like democracy, but who should the voters be?
>>>
>>
>> Well, that is, to me, a large part of the problem.
>>
>> The social/political structure of Gentoo is based on a status of
>> being an "accredited developer."  Meaning that there are hoops to jump
>> through to prove that one has a sufficiently advanced technical
>> ability, and an ability to work within the rules.  This restriction on
>> who gets a vote or not makes the situation into one of conservative
>> vs. progressive: restricted voting rights are associated with corporate
>> cultures that are inherently conservative. They are often more concerned
>> with maintaining a "status quo" than in moving forward.
>>
>> This is *exactly* what and why these conversations are taking place
>> here and now.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> G.Wolfe Woodbury
>> redwolfe@gmail.com
> 
> 

We are bordering on ridiculous levels of destructive bureaucracy with
these suggestions.  Firstly, as it has been said before, you really
can't force volunteers to do anything... Secondly, kicking project
members externally is tantamount to forcing developers to do things.
What are you going to do when there is one project member and you think
they are slacking?  Kick them, and end up with no one working instead of
someone working at reduced speed?  Thirdly, project leadership is a
democratic process for the project members; they can vote on who to lead
them.  Does it make sense for an unrelated third party to determine
this?   No.  If I am working with a group of developers, it makes no
sense for someone unrelated to start telling us how we can best operate.
 If we disagree, we don't do it, and that puts us back with #2.  You
start trying to force people to do things, and you end up with nothing.
Fourth, a developer may call for a new election of a lead at any time.
If a project truly feels that their lead is not doing their job, they
can call for a vote to change that.  Fifth, if a developer feels that a
project (that they are not a part of) is not working they way they'd
like, with the exception of a few projects, there is little to no
barrier to that developer joining and making whatever impact that they
want to.

Moreover, I think you are overestimating the power of the role of lead.
In some projects, it might mean that the person makes a lot of
decisions, in others, it might mean that the person merely guides
things.  As GLEP 39 states, it isn't up to the GLEP to impose leadership
or what that leader does, it is up to the project and what the project
thinks is best.  Council has ruled on this previously.  The GLEP is
ambiguous and their verdict was "Do what works best for you."  You don't
even have to have a lead if you feel that some other structure would
work better within your project.  Right now, project leadership is less
of a bureaucratic role, and more of a functional/technical role.  There
are benefits to adding some mandatory responsibilities, but you don't
want it to become overbearing.   What are we going to do if my Project
MATE which has only me as a project member and lead and I am slacking?
Can you truly force me to do something?  The only real punishment you
can give me is to kick me, and what does that do?  It makes all MATE
users suffer because they now have 0 developers instead of 1.  The real
way that you affect change is by getting involved in a project, not
yelling from the sidelines (eg external parties telling a project how to
operate).  But let's go back to the concept of "ousting the lead..." The
implication is that the lead is the sole reason why a project is not
doing what some external party thinks it should be doing.  Unless the
lead is a malevolent dictator, the responsibility is shared by all of
the project members.  Just chucking out the lead really won't do
anything.  And if the lead truly is a malevolent dictator who is holding
the project back, the project members can, if they feel that someone
else would do a better job, hold an election to replace the lead.

TL;DR: Projects already are designed to handle leadership internally.
This is best handled by those involved.  Those that aren't involved are
welcome to get involved if they think they can make an impact.  You
can't force anyone to do anything, and attempting to do so is often and
likely detrimental.

-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:45 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What are we going to do if my Project
> MATE which has only me as a project member and lead and I am slacking?
> Can you truly force me to do something?  The only real punishment you
> can give me is to kick me, and what does that do?  It makes all MATE
> users suffer because they now have 0 developers instead of 1.  The real
> way that you affect change is by getting involved in a project, not
> yelling from the sidelines (eg external parties telling a project how to
> operate).

++ to your post in general.

I just wanted to say that GLEP 39 already recognizes that there are
situations where there are conflicts between the needs of a project
and the needs of the distro, and this is basically the original
purpose of the Council.  I believe Debian uses a similar approach.

Sure, you could turn all these issues into general referendums but I
don't think this is productive for a couple of reasons:
1.  There are usually 1-2 substantive topics in a typical monthly
council meeting and this would be a lot of voting.  I actually do
think that the average developer is able to weigh the sorts of issues
that you bring up, but I'm not convinced that most would actually read
up on 50+ post threads every time something comes up.
2.  Today when there is a council agenda topic we tend to have
discussion threads about the topics, but people don't feel as beholden
to argue the points to death because in the end they trust the council
to do the right thing.  If they're all left to general votes I suspect
there would be more churn.
3.  How do you decide when an issue is allowed to trigger a general
vote?  The Council basically sends out a call for agenda items, and
can give as much or little time to a topic as it deems appropriate.
So, if something is silly it can get settled in 5min.  I really don't
want to see trivial topics triggering votes every month from the whole
dev community, or people asking Comrel to go after people for bringing
up topics they think are trivial, and so on.  Today anybody can have
their day in front of the Council if they wish, and it tends to not be
a problem.  Maybe it wouldn't be a problem with a referendum, but it
generally ramps up the impact to deal with anything.

Right now I think the Council is largely handling these situations as
well as can be done short of having a budget to hire people to do
directed work (the Foundation actually did do that once that I'm aware
of, at fairly low cost, with mixed results).  For the most part we
recognize that we have a lot more power to say "no" than "yes" because
"yes" requires people to do the work.  Usually we try to focus on
clearing barriers to things getting done and draw boundaries when
there is conflict, keeping the touch as light as possible.  We can all
point to things that didn't turn out how we might ideally envision
them, but typically this is more the result of nobody stepping up and
doing something we want to see done.  For example, the Council can do
things like adjust the lines between bug wranglers, maintainers,
security, and arch teams, but we can't make people step into any of
those roles.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> TL;DR: Projects already are designed to handle leadership internally.
> This is best handled by those involved.  Those that aren't involved 
> are
> welcome to get involved if they think they can make an impact.  You
> can't force anyone to do anything, and attempting to do so is often 
> and
> likely detrimental.
> 
> --
> NP-Hardass

I'm not trying to drum up bureaucracy.

I just wanted to make sure that a project couldn't, even 
hypothetically, implode in stagnation with no way to break the 
deadlock...and possibly without having to have the council take time to 
deal with it.

Key factors:

1.  IIRC, a project's lead has absolute power over who stays and who 
goes as a member
2.  the project lead is elected by the members

1 and 2 might form a feedback loop.

If i'm mistaken please feel free to correct.  I'm not picking on any 
project in particular, just remember the recent fluffle with Games and 
curious if comrel intervention is the best or only way to break a 
deadlocked project.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If i'm mistaken please feel free to correct.  I'm not picking on any project
> in particular, just remember the recent fluffle with Games and curious if
> comrel intervention is the best or only way to break a deadlocked project.
>

The games deadlock was broken without any Comrel interaction.  Comrel
doesn't deal with issues with projects.  It deals with interpersonal
issues with devs.  Council deals with project issues, and did deal
with the games deadlock.  Anybody who wants to can join the games
project, and devs are welcome to maintain packages outside of the
games project as well.  Dealing with deadlocks with projects is
actually the primary purpose of the Council.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1813 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 06:09 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:45 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> TL;DR: Projects already are designed to handle leadership internally.
>> This is best handled by those involved.  Those that aren't involved are
>> welcome to get involved if they think they can make an impact.  You
>> can't force anyone to do anything, and attempting to do so is often and
>> likely detrimental.
>>
>> -- 
>> NP-Hardass
> 
> I'm not trying to drum up bureaucracy.
> 
> I just wanted to make sure that a project couldn't, even hypothetically,
> implode in stagnation with no way to break the deadlock...and possibly
> without having to have the council take time to deal with it.
> 
> Key factors:
> 
> 1.  IIRC, a project's lead has absolute power over who stays and who
> goes as a member
> 2.  the project lead is elected by the members
> 
> 1 and 2 might form a feedback loop.
> 
> If i'm mistaken please feel free to correct.  I'm not picking on any
> project in particular, just remember the recent fluffle with Games and
> curious if comrel intervention is the best or only way to break a
> deadlocked project.
> 
If a project a malicious dictator for a leader, then the project can
elect a new leader.  If that fails, in the absolute worse case scenario,
the developers that agree with the current situation are free to leave
and start their own project.  Meta structure allows them to do this
without impediment, especially since contradictory and competing
projects are allowed.  In a more favorable outcome, the malicious
dictator does something to warrant external intervention from either
Council or ComRel, depending on the situation.  It's not great in any
case, but it isn't completely dire.

-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3755 bytes --]

(Targeting one specific comment here)

On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> [snip]
> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
> trouble.
> [snip]

Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general? I
never (knowingly) spoke with any member of Comrel in order to qualify
for developer status (my mentors were pchrist and heroxbd, my recruiters
were jlec and zlogene). Granted, I came up mostly through proxy-maint
and haven't gone out of my way to stir the pot, but it seems to me that
William may have a point and it might be worth investigating Comrel's
role in Gentoo and whether or not it's a net positive for the project.
Do we have a transparent mission for Comrel? Is there a way to measure
their impact and progress? The wiki [1] has a few pages, but they appear
to be "ported over" from the old website. There are still mentions of
CVS, even, so it's clear they haven't been touched too much. It appears
ComRel is not related to the acceptance of a developer at all; instead
it's left up to Recruiters whether a new developer is satisfactory[2]:

(paragraph "Jumping the gap", fetched 2016-10-06)
> After your mentor and the Gentoo Recruiters have reviewed your quiz
> and deemed it to be of a suitable standard, you should send it along
> with a public SSH2 DSA key (e.g. id_dsa.pub) to the Gentoo
> Recruiters. If the Recruiters consider your quiz to be of a
> satisfactory standard, they will set you up with the services that
> you require.
>
> After this time, you enter a "probationary period" of 30 days during
> which your mentor is responsible for your actions, providing
> accountability - also, Gentoo Recruiters may reject new developers
> during this time if they feel it is appropriate.

Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:

> If the developer later returns, the same initial recruitment bug is
> used to track it. Returning developers are subject to the same
> criteria as a first-time developer and must go through the same steps
> to rejoin Gentoo.

Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
relevant. As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
Council to rejoin Gentoo?

I think organizationally that each project deserves equal scrutiny into
its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a whole.
That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, imo.

I'm only writing this because, for better or worse, the community side
of Gentoo's been put in the spotlight lately and if there are any
problems I hope that we can deal with them in constructive, adult ways.
If that means improving and clarifying the language in our policies --
hopefully simplifying and making them more concrete -- then I'm in favor
of looking more into this.

As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope I would
not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after leaving.
(That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
something to think about.) Thanks for reading.

~zlg

[1]:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel/Developer_Handbook/Etiquette_policy
[2]:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel/Developer_Handbook/Becoming_a_developer
[3]:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Recruiters#What_does_the_recruitment_process_involve.3F
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> (Targeting one specific comment here)
>
> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
>> trouble.
>> [snip]
>
> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?

I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here,
again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has
been publicly posted here).

>
> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>

They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs.

>
> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
> relevant.

Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what
happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a
candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight
years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.

> As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
> Council to rejoin Gentoo?

I doubt that anybody could give you the "who" if there was anybody,
again due to privacy.  They could speak to how many, and I can say
that I've seen all of two Comrel-related appeals in the entire time
I've been on Council (which is a few years now), and none from
prospective devs.  So, I imagine this is pretty rare.  There aren't
many devs who have been kicked out in general, and I imagine only a
small fraction attempt to return.  Very few even appeal being kicked
out in the first place.

>
> I think organizationally that each project deserves equal scrutiny into
> its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a whole.
> That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, imo.
>

Hence the reason I opened the discussion threads on aspects of how
Comrel operates...

>
> As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope I would
> not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after leaving.
> (That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
> something to think about.) Thanks for reading.
>

Devs who leave without pending Comrel complaints are not subject to
any unusual process when they return, as far as I'm aware.  Devs who
had complaints just need to work with Comrel, and the fact that they
had a past issue is not generally disclosed unless they choose to
start a mailing list thread on the topic...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6085 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> (Targeting one specific comment here)
>>
>> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
>>> trouble.
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?
> 
> I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
> return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
> action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here,
> again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has
> been publicly posted here).
> 
>>
>> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
>> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>>
> 
> They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs.
> 
>>
>> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
>> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
>> relevant.
> 
> Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
> couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what
> happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
> Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a
> candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
> Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
> the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight
> years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.

On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept
secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or
merely misunderstandings?

One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine
Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only
share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; for
transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior.

I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot speak
about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only
view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end of it.
> 
>> As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
>> Council to rejoin Gentoo?
> 
> I doubt that anybody could give you the "who" if there was anybody,
> again due to privacy.  They could speak to how many, and I can say
> that I've seen all of two Comrel-related appeals in the entire time
> I've been on Council (which is a few years now), and none from
> prospective devs.  So, I imagine this is pretty rare.  There aren't
> many devs who have been kicked out in general, and I imagine only a
> small fraction attempt to return.  Very few even appeal being kicked
> out in the first place.
> 
>>
>> I think organizationally that each project deserves equal scrutiny into
>> its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a whole.
>> That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, imo.
>>
> 
> Hence the reason I opened the discussion threads on aspects of how
> Comrel operates...

Thanks for doing that. Judging from the multitude of e-mails and
responses, it's clearly something that has created poor situations and I
hope we're able to move forward to resolutions.
> 
>>
>> As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope I would
>> not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after leaving.
>> (That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
>> something to think about.) Thanks for reading.
>>
> 
> Devs who leave without pending Comrel complaints are not subject to
> any unusual process when they return, as far as I'm aware.  Devs who
> had complaints just need to work with Comrel, and the fact that they
> had a past issue is not generally disclosed unless they choose to
> start a mailing list thread on the topic...
> 

As a side note, why do we have Comrel if we're all expected to act like
adults? Adults solve problems by communicating, and having an opaque
group mediate conflicts doesn't strike me as ideal. If two people have
trouble and cannot solve it, they go their separate ways or learn to
work past their differences.

Leadership requires accountability. Trustees and the Council have some
degree of accountability, and can be removed from their positions as the
developer community pleases. With a group as influential as Comrel, I
would expect some level of accountability and responsibility. If we're
going to trust a group with what's essentially HR, their decisions
should be backed by an accountable person or group, such as the Council
(or a similar group within Comrel that answers to the community).

In that vein, I believe that if Comrel is responsible for a particularly
unpopular or otherwise disruptive change, they should be held
accountable for it, including finding "replacements" or filling the
holes left by the developer(s) they may take action against.

Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
people act on both the Council and in Comrel? I recall certain
situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
"pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.

I digress, though. Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I have a
better idea of what you're talking about now.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8386 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 08:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> (Targeting one specific comment here)
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>>>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
>>>> trouble.
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?
>>
>> I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
>> return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
>> action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here,
>> again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has
>> been publicly posted here).
>>
>>>
>>> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
>>> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>>>
>>
>> They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs.
>>
>>>
>>> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
>>> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
>>> relevant.
>>
>> Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
>> couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what
>> happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
>> Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a
>> candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
>> Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
>> the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight
>> years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.
> 
> On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept
> secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
> about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or
> merely misunderstandings?
Anonymous statistics as already proposed work to show the general trend
of action by ComRel, and if a person feels that they have been unjustly
treated by ComRel, they have the right to appeal to ComRel and the
Council.  Like a court system.  You appeal to the next higher level
until you hit the top, if you truly believe that the decision against
you was unjust.    Minor ComRel incident->Full ComRel incident->Council
review->(legal issues)->Trustees
> 
> One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine
> Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only
> share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; for
> transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior.
ComRel is directly accountable to Council.  The only concern is if you
don't trust either body.  Effectively, if you don't trust any of the
ruling bodies of Gentoo, I am not sure what your choices are, but that
means either you are off base, or there is something truly rotten in
Denmark (and I'm inclined to believe that we are NOT currently in that
situation).
> 
> I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot speak
> about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only
> view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end of it.
>>
>>> As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
>>> Council to rejoin Gentoo?
>>
>> I doubt that anybody could give you the "who" if there was anybody,
>> again due to privacy.  They could speak to how many, and I can say
>> that I've seen all of two Comrel-related appeals in the entire time
>> I've been on Council (which is a few years now), and none from
>> prospective devs.  So, I imagine this is pretty rare.  There aren't
>> many devs who have been kicked out in general, and I imagine only a
>> small fraction attempt to return.  Very few even appeal being kicked
>> out in the first place.
>>
>>>
>>> I think organizationally that each project deserves equal scrutiny into
>>> its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a whole.
>>> That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, imo.
>>>
>>
>> Hence the reason I opened the discussion threads on aspects of how
>> Comrel operates...
> 
> Thanks for doing that. Judging from the multitude of e-mails and
> responses, it's clearly something that has created poor situations and I
> hope we're able to move forward to resolutions.
>>
>>>
>>> As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope I would
>>> not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after leaving.
>>> (That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
>>> something to think about.) Thanks for reading.
>>>
>>
>> Devs who leave without pending Comrel complaints are not subject to
>> any unusual process when they return, as far as I'm aware.  Devs who
>> had complaints just need to work with Comrel, and the fact that they
>> had a past issue is not generally disclosed unless they choose to
>> start a mailing list thread on the topic...
>>
> 
> As a side note, why do we have Comrel if we're all expected to act like
> adults? Adults solve problems by communicating, and having an opaque
> group mediate conflicts doesn't strike me as ideal. If two people have
> trouble and cannot solve it, they go their separate ways or learn to
> work past their differences.
And what do you do when one person decides to continue to harass
another, despite another person trying to move on?  You have to have
some sort of mediation with a third party when things break down in bad
scenarios.  What are you going to do if a developer starts sexually
harassing another?  Are you going to expect that the person is just
going to stop?  And what if they don't?  That's why ComRel exists.  As
they say, you try to handle the issues on your own first, and if that
fails, then you escalate to ComRel, who attempts to mediate, if
mediation fails, then it may escalate to official action.  ComRel is not
running around with a ban hammer beating people up left and right.
> 
> Leadership requires accountability. Trustees and the Council have some
> degree of accountability, and can be removed from their positions as the
> developer community pleases. With a group as influential as Comrel, I
> would expect some level of accountability and responsibility. If we're
> going to trust a group with what's essentially HR, their decisions
> should be backed by an accountable person or group, such as the Council
> (or a similar group within Comrel that answers to the community).
It's the case with all representative governments.   You elect some
officials who appoint others.   If you don't like their choices, you
speak to them, or vote for someone else.
> 
> In that vein, I believe that if Comrel is responsible for a particularly
> unpopular or otherwise disruptive change, they should be held
> accountable for it, including finding "replacements" or filling the
> holes left by the developer(s) they may take action against.
How do they do that?  They can't force another developer to take their
place, nor can they suddenly will up other developers into existence
(which still has the force issue)
> 
> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
> people act on both the Council and in Comrel? I recall certain
> situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
> that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
> "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
> ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
> small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.
> 
Now, as far as conflict of interest is concerned, since the appeal of a
ComRel issue is a Council appeal, I think that a conflict of interest
warrants special attention.   Whether we are best with a policy
preventing holding both positions, or forcing someone to recuse
themselves, I think we'd probably benefit from either.
> I digress, though. Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I have a
> better idea of what you're talking about now.
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:54 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 08:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>  On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>  (Targeting one specific comment here)
>>>> 
>>>>  On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>>>  [snip]
>>>>>  Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>>>>>  convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to 
>>>>> create
>>>>>  trouble.
>>>>>  [snip]
>>>> 
>>>>  Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?
>>> 
>>>  I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
>>>  return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
>>>  action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things 
>>> here,
>>>  again I don't have the details personally but am going from what 
>>> has
>>>  been publicly posted here).
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated 
>>>> like new
>>>>  devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time 
>>> they were devs.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's 
>>>> involvement
>>>>  and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are 
>>>> still
>>>>  relevant.
>>> 
>>>  Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
>>>  couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know 
>>> what
>>>  happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
>>>  Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and 
>>> if a
>>>  candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
>>>  Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
>>>  the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened 
>>> eight
>>>  years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.
>> 
>>  On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is 
>> kept
>>  secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
>>  about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, 
>> or
>>  merely misunderstandings?
> Anonymous statistics as already proposed work to show the general 
> trend
> of action by ComRel, and if a person feels that they have been 
> unjustly
> treated by ComRel, they have the right to appeal to ComRel and the
> Council.  Like a court system.  You appeal to the next higher level
> until you hit the top, if you truly believe that the decision against
> you was unjust.    Minor ComRel incident->Full ComRel 
> incident->Council
> review->(legal issues)->Trustees
>> 
>>  One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine
>>  Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only
>>  share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; 
>> for
>>  transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior.
> ComRel is directly accountable to Council.  The only concern is if you
> don't trust either body.  Effectively, if you don't trust any of the
> ruling bodies of Gentoo, I am not sure what your choices are, but that
> means either you are off base, or there is something truly rotten in
> Denmark (and I'm inclined to believe that we are NOT currently in that
> situation).
>> 
>>  I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot 
>> speak
>>  about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only
>>  view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end 
>> of it.
>>> 
>>>>  As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
>>>>  Council to rejoin Gentoo?
>>> 
>>>  I doubt that anybody could give you the "who" if there was anybody,
>>>  again due to privacy.  They could speak to how many, and I can say
>>>  that I've seen all of two Comrel-related appeals in the entire time
>>>  I've been on Council (which is a few years now), and none from
>>>  prospective devs.  So, I imagine this is pretty rare.  There aren't
>>>  many devs who have been kicked out in general, and I imagine only a
>>>  small fraction attempt to return.  Very few even appeal being 
>>> kicked
>>>  out in the first place.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  I think organizationally that each project deserves equal 
>>>> scrutiny into
>>>>  its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a 
>>>> whole.
>>>>  That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, 
>>>> imo.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Hence the reason I opened the discussion threads on aspects of how
>>>  Comrel operates...
>> 
>>  Thanks for doing that. Judging from the multitude of e-mails and
>>  responses, it's clearly something that has created poor situations 
>> and I
>>  hope we're able to move forward to resolutions.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope 
>>>> I would
>>>>  not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after 
>>>> leaving.
>>>>  (That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
>>>>  something to think about.) Thanks for reading.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Devs who leave without pending Comrel complaints are not subject to
>>>  any unusual process when they return, as far as I'm aware.  Devs 
>>> who
>>>  had complaints just need to work with Comrel, and the fact that 
>>> they
>>>  had a past issue is not generally disclosed unless they choose to
>>>  start a mailing list thread on the topic...
>>> 
>> 
>>  As a side note, why do we have Comrel if we're all expected to act 
>> like
>>  adults? Adults solve problems by communicating, and having an opaque
>>  group mediate conflicts doesn't strike me as ideal. If two people 
>> have
>>  trouble and cannot solve it, they go their separate ways or learn to
>>  work past their differences.
> And what do you do when one person decides to continue to harass
> another, despite another person trying to move on?  You have to have
> some sort of mediation with a third party when things break down in 
> bad
> scenarios.  What are you going to do if a developer starts sexually
> harassing another?  Are you going to expect that the person is just
> going to stop?  And what if they don't?  That's why ComRel exists.  As
> they say, you try to handle the issues on your own first, and if that
> fails, then you escalate to ComRel, who attempts to mediate, if
> mediation fails, then it may escalate to official action.  ComRel is 
> not
> running around with a ban hammer beating people up left and right.
>> 
>>  Leadership requires accountability. Trustees and the Council have 
>> some
>>  degree of accountability, and can be removed from their positions 
>> as the
>>  developer community pleases. With a group as influential as Comrel, 
>> I
>>  would expect some level of accountability and responsibility. If 
>> we're
>>  going to trust a group with what's essentially HR, their decisions
>>  should be backed by an accountable person or group, such as the 
>> Council
>>  (or a similar group within Comrel that answers to the community).
> It's the case with all representative governments.   You elect some
> officials who appoint others.   If you don't like their choices, you
> speak to them, or vote for someone else.
>> 
>>  In that vein, I believe that if Comrel is responsible for a 
>> particularly
>>  unpopular or otherwise disruptive change, they should be held
>>  accountable for it, including finding "replacements" or filling the
>>  holes left by the developer(s) they may take action against.
> How do they do that?  They can't force another developer to take their
> place, nor can they suddenly will up other developers into existence
> (which still has the force issue)
>> 
>>  Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should 
>> we let
>>  people act on both the Council and in Comrel? I recall certain
>>  situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. 
>> Is
>>  that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are 
>> multiple
>>  "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can 
>> to
>>  ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or 
>> a
>>  small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a 
>> weapon.
>> 
> Now, as far as conflict of interest is concerned, since the appeal of 
> a
> ComRel issue is a Council appeal, I think that a conflict of interest
> warrants special attention.   Whether we are best with a policy
> preventing holding both positions, or forcing someone to recuse
> themselves, I think we'd probably benefit from either.

Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for the 
record that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous 
documentation.

The same documentation also forbade council members from also being 
proctors, specifically to avoid such a conflict of interest.

If we want to establish (or more accurately, revive) such a policy, I 
feel it is noteworthy that such a policy already has precedent in 
Gentoo itself.

> 
>>  I digress, though. Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I have a
>>  better idea of what you're talking about now.
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> NP-Hardass
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for the record
> that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous
> documentation.
>

Actually, the Proctors were a third project distinct from Devrel and
Userrel (though there was probably overlap in membership, etc).  They
lasted all of a few days.  They were created along with the CoC and
never really got to function as intended.  They were intended to
operate a bit like forum mods for the lists, locking discussions that
were out of control, issuing short-term bans to try to discourage
flaming, and so on.  I was around when they were formed and disbanded,
but I wasn't on the inside back then so I didn't appreciate the
politics that caused them to fail.  A few others who were around back
then could better relay the story.

The proctors were never intended to deal with serious complaints about
individual behavior that might warrant kicking somebody out.  There
has been talk of trying to bring back the role, with the goal of
trying to nip bad behavior in the bud before it grows into a big mess.
If we went down that road then Proctors would have a lot less rigor in
their activities, and could hand out "punishments" with almost no due
process/etc, but the "punishments" would be things like a few days ban
from IRC or other minimal sanctions, with a strict upper limit on
their powers.  Basically they'd be handing out slaps on the wrist.
Issues that couldn't be handled in this way could be escalated to
Comrel.  The idea would be that when a problem starts they could
quickly step in and moderate/warn/ban/etc to try to keep the overall
tone of the channel/list/etc in line with the CoC, as opposed to what
happens today where two parties can snipe at each other for months
until both are screaming for blood.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for 
>> the record
>>  that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous
>>  documentation.
>> 
> 
> Actually, the Proctors were a third project distinct from Devrel and
> Userrel (though there was probably overlap in membership, etc).  They
> lasted all of a few days.  They were created along with the CoC and
> never really got to function as intended.  They were intended to
> operate a bit like forum mods for the lists, locking discussions that
> were out of control, issuing short-term bans to try to discourage
> flaming, and so on.  I was around when they were formed and disbanded,
> but I wasn't on the inside back then so I didn't appreciate the
> politics that caused them to fail.  A few others who were around back
> then could better relay the story.
> 
> The proctors were never intended to deal with serious complaints about
> individual behavior that might warrant kicking somebody out.  There
> has been talk of trying to bring back the role, with the goal of
> trying to nip bad behavior in the bud before it grows into a big mess.
> If we went down that road then Proctors would have a lot less rigor in
> their activities, and could hand out "punishments" with almost no due
> process/etc, but the "punishments" would be things like a few days ban
> from IRC or other minimal sanctions, with a strict upper limit on
> their powers.  Basically they'd be handing out slaps on the wrist.
> Issues that couldn't be handled in this way could be escalated to
> Comrel.  The idea would be that when a problem starts they could
> quickly step in and moderate/warn/ban/etc to try to keep the overall
> tone of the channel/list/etc in line with the CoC, as opposed to what
> happens today where two parties can snipe at each other for months
> until both are screaming for blood.

Seems this oversight either never made it into the docs I studied for 
my quiz, or I missed something.

That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest is 
still a meritorious one.  Someone obviously felt strongly enough about 
it to put it in as official policy for the proctors (a role which 
devrel and userrel were explicitly documented as fulfilling, btw).

If as you say they were intended to only give otu slaps on the wrist of 
a sort, one would think that the principle would apply even more 
strongly in a comrel case where the long term fate of an errant 
developer hangs in the balance.


> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest is still
> a meritorious one.

Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity.  However, I
still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors,
Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest.

Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a
conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision that
is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally.

As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here.
That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, and
it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel...  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest 
>> is still
>>  a meritorious one.
> 
> Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity.  However, I
> still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors,
> Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest.
> 
> Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a
> conflict of interest.
> 
> A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision that
> is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally.
> 
> As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here.
> That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, and
> it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel...  :)

https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&oldid=53283

I found this.
> 
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/06/2016 08:53 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest
>>> is still
>>>  a meritorious one.
>>
>> Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity.  However, I
>> still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors,
>> Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest.
>>
>> Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a
>> conflict of interest.
>>
>> A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision that
>> is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally.
>>
>> As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here.
>> That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, and
>> it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel...  :)
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&oldid=53283
> 
> 
> I found this.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Rich
>>
> 
> 
iirc there is a policy of no crossover between trustees and council.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Matthew Thode 
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 08:53 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings 
>>> <shentino@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of 
>>>> interest
>>>>  is still
>>>>   a meritorious one.
>>> 
>>>  Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity.  However, 
>>> I
>>>  still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors,
>>>  Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest.
>>> 
>>>  Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a
>>>  conflict of interest.
>>> 
>>>  A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision 
>>> that
>>>  is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally.
>>> 
>>>  As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here.
>>>  That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, 
>>> and
>>>  it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel...  :)
>> 
>>  
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&oldid=53283
>> 
>> 
>>  I found this.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  --
>>>  Rich
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> iirc there is a policy of no crossover between trustees and council.

The relevant parts in the link I found:

> Disciplinary action will be up to the descretion of the proctors. 
> What is a proctor? A proctor is an official charged with the duty of 
> maintaining good order. Currently this responsibility falls to two 
> existing Gentoo projects: DevRel and UserRel.

This establishes Devrel and Userrel as fulfilling the role of proctor

> If discplinary measures are taken and the affected person wishes to 
> appeal, appeals should be addressed to the Gentoo Council via email 
> at council@g.o. To prevent conflicts of interest, *Council members 
> may not perform the duties of a proctor.*

This establishes that council members cannot be proctors (part of 
comrel's ancestors userrel and devrel)

And comrel was formed from the union of devrel and userrel.

It looks like things changed since then, but scuttlebutt on irc says 
the COI wording probably got messed up.

PS:  Sorry for the duplicate message spam.  I just set up my email 
clients recently and it looks like they're acting weird.  I reported a 
couple bugs on geary already this week.

> --
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&oldid=53283
>>>
>
>
> This establishes that council members cannot be proctors (part of comrel's
> ancestors userrel and devrel)
>
> And comrel was formed from the union of devrel and userrel.
>
> It looks like things changed since then, but scuttlebutt on irc says the COI
> wording probably got messed up.

Did anybody actually vote to approve the text you are citing here?

The CoC is older than the wiki.  It sounds like it has been edited a
few times since, but I'm not sure I'd put more weight on that
particular version.  I certainly wouldn't consider it an authoritative
historical source when the wiki didn't exist at the same time as the
Proctors.  The original CoC would have been written in guidexml.

In any case, it is up to us to define what the CoC ought to say.  It
isn't a religious text.  I'm willing to go along with the majority,
but we shouldn't be beholden to a random edit on a wiki, or even the
original version.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 440 bytes --]

On 2016.10.07 03:19, Matthew Thode wrote:

> iirc there is a policy of no crossover between trustees and council.
> 
> -- 
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> 
> 
> 

Matthew,

That's a Foundation bylaw.  For the avoidance of doubt, that does
not apply to Foundation officers as they don't have a vote on
the Foundation board. 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1032 bytes --]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 10:47:53 PM EDT Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2016.10.07 03:19, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > iirc there is a policy of no crossover between trustees and council.
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> That's a Foundation bylaw.  For the avoidance of doubt, that does
> not apply to Foundation officers as they don't have a vote on
> the Foundation board.

Which I received a hard time for introducing... Part of the series of events 
that lead to me resigning...

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
a3f9cc7d3d7d4be99202353a2950f0ce

 I was mostly responsible for Article 5.2, and 5.3, among others. I conducted 
a public review of the draft by laws.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5

First post after I resigned asking about that article...
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2008-08/

P.S.
For some reason -nfp list is not longer mirrored by public mailing list 
mirrors. Searching is very hard, and seems some threads seem broken on the 
Gentoo archives.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1531 bytes --]



On 10/06/2016 06:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That said I think the principle of avoiding a conflict of interest is still
>> a meritorious one.
> 
> Avoiding conflicts of interest is an absolute necessity.  However, I
> still dispute that overlapping membership between Comrel, Proctors,
> Council, Trustees, etc is a conflict of interest.
> 
> Now, somebody voting on a case where they are a party would be a
> conflict of interest.
> 
> A conflict of interest exists when somebody can make a decision that
> is bad for Gentoo, but good for them personally.

This isn't exactly true.  A conflict of interest arises anytime someone
is put in a decision making position and have competing interests with
respect to the decision.  Put differently, a conflict of interest arises
anytime a person making a decision appears to be unable to make the
decision objectively.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am of the opinion that no person
should be permitted to be a counselor and ComRel member at the same
time.  Even if they recuse themselves during appeals, it's one less
voting counselor the appeal would otherwise have if the the recused was
not a counselor in the first place.

-Nicholas Vinson
> 
> As I mentioned, I believe this is a minority opinion around here.
> That's ok, even if you're all wrong I can still follow the policy, and
> it is a bit moot in my case since I'm not in Comrel...  :)
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3065 bytes --]

On 2016.10.07 02:13, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for
> the record
> > that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous
> > documentation.
> >
> 
> Actually, the Proctors were a third project distinct from Devrel and
> Userrel (though there was probably overlap in membership, etc).  They
> lasted all of a few days.  They were created along with the CoC and
> never really got to function as intended.  They were intended to
> operate a bit like forum mods for the lists, locking discussions that
> were out of control, issuing short-term bans to try to discourage
> flaming, and so on.  I was around when they were formed and disbanded,
> but I wasn't on the inside back then so I didn't appreciate the
> politics that caused them to fail.  A few others who were around back
> then could better relay the story.
> 
> The proctors were never intended to deal with serious complaints about
> individual behavior that might warrant kicking somebody out.  There
> has been talk of trying to bring back the role, with the goal of
> trying to nip bad behavior in the bud before it grows into a big mess.
> If we went down that road then Proctors would have a lot less rigor in
> their activities, and could hand out "punishments" with almost no due
> process/etc, but the "punishments" would be things like a few days ban
> from IRC or other minimal sanctions, with a strict upper limit on
> their powers.  Basically they'd be handing out slaps on the wrist.
> Issues that couldn't be handled in this way could be escalated to
> Comrel.  The idea would be that when a problem starts they could
> quickly step in and moderate/warn/ban/etc to try to keep the overall
> tone of the channel/list/etc in line with the CoC, as opposed to what
> happens today where two parties can snipe at each other for months
> until both are screaming for blood.
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 

Rich,

The term Proctor(s) is ambiguous in the history of the Gentoo and
the CoC.

In early versions of the CoC it clearly refers to userrel and devrel,
and anyone else charged with CoC enforcement.

The term was used concurrently as a name for the Proctors project 

The CoC history can be found on sources.gentoo.org. As you say,
in GuideXML. The votes to approve the original CoC and changes are 
mostly recorded in council meeting logs.  Mostly, because its 
difficult to compare the last CVS version and first wiki version.

We need to be very careful of not having "random edits" to the 
CoC as its a document controlled by the council. 

As a member of the original Proctors until the end, I can confirm that 
most of what you say about the Proctors project is correct.  I don't 
think its useful to this  discussion to go into the reasons for the 
Proctors being wound up.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Roy Bamford wrote:

> The CoC history can be found on sources.gentoo.org. As you say,
> in GuideXML. The votes to approve the original CoC and changes are 
> mostly recorded in council meeting logs.  Mostly, because its 
> difficult to compare the last CVS version and first wiki version.

Actually, not difficult at all, because their wording is identical. :)
Therefore, CVS [1] and wiki [2] combined should give you the full
history.

There were only two changes with regards to content after inception
of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
(bug 185572), and another one following the 2013-12-10 council
meeting, replacing devrel/userrel with comrel. All the rest are
editorial changes, like update of URLs or fixes of wiki syntax.

> We need to be very careful of not having "random edits" to the CoC
> as its a document controlled by the council.

There was only one such non-council edit ever (changing the spelling
from British to U.S. English) and it has been reverted.

Ulrich

[1] https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/coc.xml?view=log
[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&action=history

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1649 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:20:09 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > The CoC history can be found on sources.gentoo.org. As you say,
> > in GuideXML. The votes to approve the original CoC and changes are
> > mostly recorded in council meeting logs.  Mostly, because its
> > difficult to compare the last CVS version and first wiki version.
> 
> Actually, not difficult at all, because their wording is identical. :)
> Therefore, CVS [1] and wiki [2] combined should give you the full
> history.
> 
> There were only two changes with regards to content after inception
> of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
> (bug 185572),

I was not aware comrel and userrel were created in 2008. Timing is quite 
interesting. That could explain quite allot, and why at least in my opinion. 
Gentoo has been on the decline since ~2008. I do not feel either has had a 
good or positive impact. The issues in Gentoo could be directly related.

No person will ever say they came to Gentoo because of comrel/userrel/devrel.
Would anyone every say they left Gentoo because of comrel/userrel/devrel?

Typically you must have allot going, be popular, and have to many wanting to 
volunteer. To have a need to weed out the bad. If there is not over staffing 
issues, then not sure driving anyone away is a good idea. Who will replace 
them?

Correct the mistakes of the past, dis-ban comrel, leave recruiting... Ditch 
policies of policing, and focus more on growing the numbers...

The biggest thing everyone should care about, is bringing more people to 
Gentoo!!!

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:

>> There were only two changes with regards to content after inception
>> of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
>> (bug 185572),

> I was not aware comrel and userrel were created in 2008.

Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution of
the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.

> Timing is quite interesting. That could explain quite allot, and why
> at least in my opinion. Gentoo has been on the decline since ~2008.
> I do not feel either has had a good or positive impact. The issues
> in Gentoo could be directly related.

Since the premise is wrong, this doesn't follow.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2118 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:59:38 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
> >> There were only two changes with regards to content after inception
> >> of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
> >> (bug 185572),
> > 
> > I was not aware comrel and userrel were created in 2008.
> 
> Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution of
> the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.

Yes but per that bug it seems most the policing powers fell under Proctors and 
that was transferred to comrel/devrel.

Snippet from bug 185572

"If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open to the 
proctors, including temporary or permanent suspension of a person's ability to 
post to mailing lists, removal of Bugzilla access, or in more severe cases 
suspension of developer privileges. Any action of this sort will require 
consensus from at least three proctors. "

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185572

It is quite clear that prior to ~2007-2008, punishment was handled by Proctors 
not comrel/devrel/userrel. The last bit about requiring consensus is 
interesting. I do not recall reading such about devrel/comrel but may exist. 
Clearly comrel can act individually and people must request a vote from all... 
Proctors never seemed to operate that way.

Also interesting how proctors could not be on council ( or vice versa ), but 
that has never been the case for comrel/devrel...

> > Timing is quite interesting. That could explain quite allot, and why
> > at least in my opinion. Gentoo has been on the decline since ~2008.
> > I do not feel either has had a good or positive impact. The issues
> > in Gentoo could be directly related.
> 
> Since the premise is wrong, this doesn't follow.

Actually it is does given powers were transferred from one entity to another. 
I never recall hearing issues from the Proctors. Seems comrel/devrel concept 
has not worked since its inception. Or at least since Proctors was merged into 
or taken over by other entities.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1596 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:11:00 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:

> "If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open to the
> proctors, including temporary or permanent suspension of a person's ability
> to post to mailing lists, removal of Bugzilla access, or in more severe
> cases suspension of developer privileges. Any action of this sort will
> require consensus from at least three proctors. "
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185572

One thing I would like to point out....

"or in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges" 

My case was never severe enough to justify or merit suspending developer 
commit privileges for 15 days, that turned into 8+ years. This was supposed to 
be reserved for severe cases.

I hardly think most anything that takes place on -nfp list could ever be 
considered severe. Very few subscribe much less post to that list. I know back 
when things happened in 2008, most developers had no clue what took place. It 
ended up spilling into -core and becoming a much larger issue. Which it never 
should have been an issue. One that remains to this day.

I still stand by if comrel/devrel did not create the problem in 2008, it would 
not exist in 2016... They failed to resolve the problem they in part created. 
They continue to take severe action for something that never was, and in my 
case have escalated my status to something it never was.

Dis-ban comrel, or revoke their powers they abuse  punishing developers, so 
people can get back to work and stop with the social bs....

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> One thing I would like to point out....
>
> "or in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges"
>
> My case was never severe enough to justify or merit suspending developer
> commit privileges for 15 days, that turned into 8+ years. This was supposed to
> be reserved for severe cases.

Everybody on this mailing list falls into one of three categories:

1.  They don't have all the facts regarding whatever happened 8+ years
ago regarding your case.   (I'm in that category, FWIW.)
2.  They aren't allowed to post on this list whatever they do know
about what happened 8+ years ago.
3.  You.

And this is why mailing lists aren't really an effective place to
solve these sorts of disputes.

>
> Dis-ban comrel, or revoke their powers they abuse  punishing developers, so
> people can get back to work and stop with the social bs....
>

I've yet to see a Comrel case appealed that centered around people
just doing work.  If somebody just submits patches or commits all day
long they're not going to have anything to even get involved with.
Maybe QA might get involved, but not Comrel.  Typically Comrel gets
involved because somebody decided to dabble in social bs in the first
place.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2401 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:29:19 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > One thing I would like to point out....
> > 
> > "or in more severe cases suspension of developer privileges"
> > 
> > My case was never severe enough to justify or merit suspending developer
> > commit privileges for 15 days, that turned into 8+ years. This was
> > supposed to be reserved for severe cases.
> 
> Everybody on this mailing list falls into one of three categories:
> 
> 1.  They don't have all the facts regarding whatever happened 8+ years
> ago regarding your case.   (I'm in that category, FWIW.)

It is publicly available. This took place on a public mailing list -nfp. It 
did not happen in a void or private communication.

Only the aftermath discussions took place on -core. Not sure if Gentoo has any 
internal archive.

> 2.  They aren't allowed to post on this list whatever they do know
> about what happened 8+ years ago.
> 3.  You.

4. They are no longer part of Gentoo.

Most of the people involved in 2008, Chrissy, Alec, etc have all moved on. The 
mess created remains...
 
> And this is why mailing lists aren't really an effective place to
> solve these sorts of disputes.

What mailing list is? This is technically preventing development so should be 
on -dev. This list was created for such things related to the project that are 
not development related.

Not surprising to hear it is off topic for this list. Where is it on topic a 
comrel list? 


> I've yet to see a Comrel case appealed that centered around people
> just doing work.  If somebody just submits patches or commits all day
> long they're not going to have anything to even get involved with.
> Maybe QA might get involved, but not Comrel.  Typically Comrel gets
> involved because somebody decided to dabble in social bs in the first
> place.

Comrel chooses to get involved when they need not be. They had no reason to 
get involved in 2015, or since 2008. They did not need to get involved and 
take action in 2008.

That is the root of the entire problem. They choose to interject when they are 
not needed or wanted...

If comrel did nothing in 2015, I would not be here posting. If they did 
nothing in 2008, I would never have left. This is all because of their 
involvement, not their resolution...


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:29:19 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Everybody on this mailing list falls into one of three categories:
>>
>> 1.  They don't have all the facts regarding whatever happened 8+ years
>> ago regarding your case.   (I'm in that category, FWIW.)
>
> It is publicly available. This took place on a public mailing list -nfp. It
> did not happen in a void or private communication.

Maybe it did.  I can't vouch for this statement either way, because
I'm in group #1.

>
>> 2.  They aren't allowed to post on this list whatever they do know
>> about what happened 8+ years ago.
>> 3.  You.
>
> 4. They are no longer part of Gentoo.
>
> Most of the people involved in 2008, Chrissy, Alec, etc have all moved on. The
> mess created remains...

Well, if you have a problem with how Comrel is handling your case
today, I suggest you appeal it.  That is really all I can do in my
position in group #1.  If you appeal, I'll join group #2, and still
won't be able to comment here on what happened, but I'd get a vote in
whether you'd be allowed back.

>
>> And this is why mailing lists aren't really an effective place to
>> solve these sorts of disputes.
>
> What mailing list is? This is technically preventing development so should be
> on -dev. This list was created for such things related to the project that are
> not development related.
>
> Not surprising to hear it is off topic for this list. Where is it on topic a
> comrel list?
>

It would be on-topic in a private email to Comrel, or in an appeal to
the Council.

>
> Comrel chooses to get involved when they need not be. They had no reason to
> get involved in 2015, or since 2008. They did not need to get involved and
> take action in 2008.
>

Again, nobody here is really in a position to debate this issue.  You
can post that another 1000x if it makes you feel better, but it isn't
going to be likely to cause anybody to take action on your case in
particular.

>
> If comrel did nothing in 2015, I would not be here posting.

And your recourse is to appeal.  You haven't exhausted your options
with the process as it currently stands.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1963 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:58:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:

> Maybe it did.  I can't vouch for this statement either way, because
> I'm in group #1.

Anyone can learn about the past. Just read the posts on -nfp, and then my bug. 
It all took place publicly. There are not many posts on -nfp, it started in 
August. I provided links in my first post....

> Well, if you have a problem with how Comrel is handling your case
> today, I suggest you appeal it.  

Appeal what? Comrel entirely? What would I be appealing? 

I have asked that question several times and no one has answered that. It also 
seems before appeal I need to request a full vote by comrel. The entire 
situation is not clear to me....

> That is really all I can do in my
> position in group #1.  If you appeal, I'll join group #2, and still
> won't be able to comment here on what happened, but I'd get a vote in
> whether you'd be allowed back.

Appeal what? Seriously!

> It would be on-topic in a private email to Comrel, or in an appeal to
> the Council.

I have never been treated fairly by comrel. The interaction with comrel has 
never been good since 2008. Last time I was in irc comrel silenced me, from 
THEIR channel

If I made such posts on a comrel list, I would be banned.... I was accused of 
spamming THEIR irc channel. Likely make the same accusation about emails.

> Again, nobody here is really in a position to debate this issue.  You
> can post that another 1000x if it makes you feel better, but it isn't
> going to be likely to cause anybody to take action on your case in
> particular.

I stopped for days, I chimed in on some specific points. But I really do not 
expect things to change in my case. Also this effects MORE than just me...

> > If comrel did nothing in 2015, I would not be here posting.
> 
> And your recourse is to appeal.  You haven't exhausted your options
> with the process as it currently stands.

Appeal what?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:58:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>
>> Well, if you have a problem with how Comrel is handling your case
>> today, I suggest you appeal it.
>
> Appeal what? Comrel entirely? What would I be appealing?

The facts of your case.

If your problem is with how Comrel operates in general, then stop
bringing up your own case because it simply isn't relevant.  If your
problem is with the handling of your case then appeal it, because
nobody on this list can help you.

The lists are best used for discussing specific proposed reforms or
problems.  The sort of problem that can be discussed on a list and be
likely to lead to improvements is "the documentation isn't clear on
how I file an appeal."  The sort of problem that isn't likely to get
resolved on a list is "I filed an appeal and didn't get the answer I
wanted."

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1659 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 1:59:12 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:14 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:58:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Well, if you have a problem with how Comrel is handling your case
> >> today, I suggest you appeal it.
> > 
> > Appeal what? Comrel entirely? What would I be appealing?
> 
> The facts of your case.

What is my case? That comrel gets involved in recruiting and prevents my 
return? Appeal the status/label comrel has given me? Appeal the notes comrel 
has on me? What is my status I would be appealing? What is the decision I am 
appealing?

What would I be appealing?

> If your problem is with how Comrel operates in general, then stop
> bringing up your own case because it simply isn't relevant. 

How is my case not relevant to how comrel operates? If anything I am a good 
case example of comrel's inability to resolve a matter. You know the saying, 
lead by example... I am the example...

> If your
> problem is with the handling of your case then appeal it, because
> nobody on this list can help you.

Appeal what?

> The lists are best used for discussing specific proposed reforms or
> problems.  The sort of problem that can be discussed on a list and be
> likely to lead to improvements is "the documentation isn't clear on
> how I file an appeal."  The sort of problem that isn't likely to get
> resolved on a list is "I filed an appeal and didn't get the answer I
> wanted."

It is not the documentation or process, but the topic. What am I appealing? 
What comrel action am I appealing?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andreas K. Hüttel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 352 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2016, 20:10:20 schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> 
> What would I be appealing?
> 

See attachment. Just to document that the last two weeks haven't really led to 
any significant contribution.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>: Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years... --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4259 bytes --]

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:09:36 +0200
Message-ID: <201609301709.42323.dilfridge@gentoo.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 29. September 2016, 22:04:56 schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> 
> For a brief recap;
> 

[snip]

William, 

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43

my opinion on this still stands and is documented at the link above.

As also documented there, if you disagree you can request a full comrel team 
vote. 

If the result still doesn't make you happy you can afterwards appeal to the 
council (and as per our rules I then won't be involved in the appeal 
proceedings).

So far you didn't start any of this, instead just going off into rants. Thus I 
think there's not really anything to discuss about.

Cheers, 
Andreas

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=jPWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1449 bytes --]

Andreas K. Hüttel,

	If you resign from either comrel and/or council then an appeal might make 
sense. At this time it does not. Given the fact that you are the LEAD of 
comrel and also a council member.  Major conflict of interest! Simply omitting 
from a vote is not acceptable on either body.

Which matters more to you? Being on the council or Lead of Comrel?

As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any appeal. 
You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be appealing to 
council.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:37:34 PM EDT Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2016, 20:10:20 schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> > What would I be appealing?
> 
> See attachment

That does not cover the topic of appeal. If I go to the council I need to have 
specifics. Not I am appealing comrel actions in general...

Rather than refer to an attachment. It should be easier to give a statement, 
single sentence, as to what I would be appealing. This is a sign of your lack 
of leadership. Being vague when you should be specific.

Not to mention that post you refer to, you mentioned a vote from comrel. Which 
also seems pointless as your opinion of me is quite clear and bias.

> . Just to document that the last two weeks haven't really led
> to any significant contribution.

What do you mean by contribution? Technical contributions?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any appeal.
> You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be appealing to
> council.

The onus of any appeal is on you.  If he felt that there was anything
to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in the first place.  An appeal is
the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
that there was nothing wrong with his decision.  That doesn't mean
that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
in the first place.

If you disagree with something Comrel did, then appeal whatever it is
that you disagree with.  If you're fine with it, then don't.  Either
way, if you don't appeal (either to Comrel as a whole or Council)
nothing is likely to change regarding your specific case.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2153 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:10:17 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any
> > appeal. You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be
> > appealing to council.
> 
> The onus of any appeal is on you.  

What decision am I seeking to appeal or reverse? This is what I am asking 
clarification of...

> If he felt that there was anything to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in 
the first place. 

While also not stating what I would be appealing... What decision? What 
ruling?

> An appeal is
> the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
> part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
> that there was nothing wrong with his decision. 

A judge issues a ruling, guilty, not guilty, etc. What is my status? What is 
the decision I am seeking to appeal?

Appeal that comrel won't let me be recruited? Appeal that comrel wants to see 
work that exists? Appeal how comrel deals with matters? Appeal comrel/devrel 
actions from 2008?

> That doesn't mean
> that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
> going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
> advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
> in the first place.

What is the ruling in my case? Other than I cannot be a developer...

> If you disagree with something Comrel did, then appeal whatever it is
> that you disagree with.  If you're fine with it, then don't.  Either
> way, if you don't appeal (either to Comrel as a whole or Council)
> nothing is likely to change regarding your specific case.

You want me to file an appeal on disagreements on Comrel actions? That would be 
lengthy appeal...

I know nothing will change, others comments have pretty much ensured that. 
Appeals are futile a waste of the councils time, etc. If I win an appeal it 
gets even worse.

It is much easier to do nothing and let Gentoo continue to bit rot and lose 
people rather than gain them...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2754 bytes --]

On 11/10/16 20:40, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:10:17 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>
>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>> As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any
>>> appeal. You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be
>>> appealing to council.
>> The onus of any appeal is on you.  
> What decision am I seeking to appeal or reverse? This is what I am asking 
> clarification of...
>
>> If he felt that there was anything to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in 
> the first place. 
>
> While also not stating what I would be appealing... What decision? What 
> ruling?
>
>> An appeal is
>> the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
>> part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
>> that there was nothing wrong with his decision. 
> A judge issues a ruling, guilty, not guilty, etc. What is my status? What is 
> the decision I am seeking to appeal?
>
> Appeal that comrel won't let me be recruited? Appeal that comrel wants to see 
> work that exists? Appeal how comrel deals with matters? Appeal comrel/devrel 
> actions from 2008?
>
>> That doesn't mean
>> that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
>> going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
>> advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
>> in the first place.
> What is the ruling in my case? Other than I cannot be a developer...
>
>> If you disagree with something Comrel did, then appeal whatever it is
>> that you disagree with.  If you're fine with it, then don't.  Either
>> way, if you don't appeal (either to Comrel as a whole or Council)
>> nothing is likely to change regarding your specific case.
> You want me to file an appeal on disagreements on Comrel actions? That would be 
> lengthy appeal...
>
> I know nothing will change, others comments have pretty much ensured that. 
> Appeals are futile a waste of the councils time, etc. If I win an appeal it 
> gets even worse.
>
> It is much easier to do nothing and let Gentoo continue to bit rot and lose 
> people rather than gain them...
>
You seem to be missing the point. If *you* don't have cause for an
appeal or have no idea what appeal you are presenting .. wtf are you
complaining about? You claim to have a case, but you seen unable to
articulate it in the context of Gentoo policy and procedure. As the
council members and other readers have commented, if you cannot point to
a flaw in policy or procedure you cannot simply make personal
accusations and expect anyone to take you seriously....


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1804 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:09:57 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
> 
> You seem to be missing the point.

No others are missing the point. Incorrect action that went against policy was 
taken against me years ago and continues.

> If *you* don't have cause for an
> appeal or have no idea what appeal you are presenting .. wtf are you
> complaining about? You claim to have a case, but you seen unable to
> articulate it in the context of Gentoo policy and procedure.

No action against me has ever followed published procedure past or present. I 
have factually pointed that out several times.

> As the
> council members and other readers have commented, if you cannot point to
> a flaw in policy or procedure you cannot simply make personal
> accusations and expect anyone to take you seriously....

I have several times... Go re-read posts...

An individual should not have to file an appeal to show that others did not 
follow proper procedures in the first place. That any entity can take such 
actions without any oversight shows serious flaws.

Who monitors comrel for policy compliance?

In a court, if police failed to follow their procedures, it can be grounds for 
the entire case to be dismissed.

How can action stand that went against published policies? 
What policy states that any person can be permanently banned from the project? 
What policy states that a person who left can later be seen as having been 
kicked out?

What policy is mentioned here as to my denial of ability to become a developer 
again?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43

What policy was violated in 2015, or since 2008?
Were any warnings issued? 

Demand I follow policy, but not Gentoo right? Comrel does not have to follow 
its own policies, but everyone else does?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2007 bytes --]

On 11/10/16 22:40, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:09:57 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> You seem to be missing the point.
> No others are missing the point. Incorrect action that went against policy was 
> taken against me years ago and continues.
>
>> If *you* don't have cause for an
>> appeal or have no idea what appeal you are presenting .. wtf are you
>> complaining about? You claim to have a case, but you seen unable to
>> articulate it in the context of Gentoo policy and procedure.
> No action against me has ever followed published procedure past or present. I 
> have factually pointed that out several times.
>
>> As the
>> council members and other readers have commented, if you cannot point to
>> a flaw in policy or procedure you cannot simply make personal
>> accusations and expect anyone to take you seriously....
> I have several times... Go re-read posts...
>
> An individual should not have to file an appeal to show that others did not 
> follow proper procedures in the first place. That any entity can take such 
> actions without any oversight shows serious flaws.
>
> Who monitors comrel for policy compliance?
>
> In a court, if police failed to follow their procedures, it can be grounds for 
> the entire case to be dismissed.
>
> How can action stand that went against published policies? 
> What policy states that any person can be permanently banned from the project? 
> What policy states that a person who left can later be seen as having been 
> kicked out?
>
> What policy is mentioned here as to my denial of ability to become a developer 
> again?
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43
>
> What policy was violated in 2015, or since 2008?
> Were any warnings issued? 
>
> Demand I follow policy, but not Gentoo right? Comrel does not have to follow 
> its own policies, but everyone else does?
>
I think you've found a cause, or causes for appeal to Council, then, right?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1096 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:12:45 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
> I think you've found a cause, or causes for appeal to Council, then, right?

I have made the case no policy has been followed. Thus no action against me 
can stand, so nothing to appeal.

Again in a court, if policies and procedures are not followed, a person cannot 
be prosecuted, nor can that ruling withstand.

If others want to act based on the facts of policies not being followed that 
is up to them. But I will not be appealing incorrect action that goes against 
policy. They do not have such authority to do things as they have.

Who punishes comrel? ( we know there is no oversight)
What are their penalties for not following policies and procedures? Any?

At minimum any individual who fails to follow published Comrel policies and 
procedures should be removed from that project. NOT Gentoo, nor having any 
further action against them. If they cannot follow policies and procedures of 
any project, they should not be part of that project. It is quite simple.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1797 bytes --]

On 10/11/2016 06:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:12:45 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>
>> I think you've found a cause, or causes for appeal to Council, then, right?
> 
> I have made the case no policy has been followed. Thus no action against me 
> can stand, so nothing to appeal.
> 
> Again in a court, if policies and procedures are not followed, a person cannot 
> be prosecuted, nor can that ruling withstand.
Then go to council and appeal.  In a court, if policies and procedures
aren't followed, it is on the defendant to bring suit against the
plaintiff to assert that their rights were violated.  Go file your
appeal already...  Once you've done that, come back and talk policy on
how to reform ComRel.  Either that or give up on trying to get back in
for now and just focus on trying to reform ComRel.  Right now, you are
getting nowhere and just wearing down anyone who might support you.
Pick a course of action and stick to it.  Appeal or try to reform ComRel
in a fashion unrelated to your non-appeal.
> 
> If others want to act based on the facts of policies not being followed that 
> is up to them. But I will not be appealing incorrect action that goes against 
> policy. They do not have such authority to do things as they have.
> 
> Who punishes comrel? ( we know there is no oversight)
> What are their penalties for not following policies and procedures? Any?
> 
> At minimum any individual who fails to follow published Comrel policies and 
> procedures should be removed from that project. NOT Gentoo, nor having any 
> further action against them. If they cannot follow policies and procedures of 
> any project, they should not be part of that project. It is quite simple.
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:27:38 PM EDT NP-Hardass wrote:
>
> Then go to council and appeal.  In a court, if policies and procedures
> aren't followed, it is on the defendant to bring suit against the
> plaintiff to assert that their rights were violated.

No, that is not how the law works. No one is prosecuted and then has to appeal 
when policies and procedures were not followed in the first place. That would 
be the easiest appeal in the world... Try to submit evidence that was 
illegally obtained. Thankfully courts do not operate that way.

> Go file your
> appeal already...  Once you've done that, come back and talk policy on
> how to reform ComRel.  Either that or give up on trying to get back in
> for now and just focus on trying to reform ComRel.  Right now, you are
> getting nowhere and just wearing down anyone who might support you.
> Pick a course of action and stick to it.  Appeal or try to reform ComRel
> in a fashion unrelated to your non-appeal.

Option 3
Work with recruiters. Get past this BS! Do not waste the councils time with 
such non-sense!

Option 4
I do nothing. My choice back in 2008.  Just let things be neglected.
The status quo...

I want comrel to leave me alone! Stop preventing me from working! In some way 
that requires the least effort from all....

Simply for Comrel to get out of the way, since 2008, preventing technical 
progress.


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

On 12/10/16 00:03, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Option 3
> Work with recruiters. Get past this BS! Do not waste the councils time with 
> such non-sense!
>
> Option 4
> I do nothing. My choice back in 2008.  Just let things be neglected.
> The status quo...
>
> I want comrel to leave me alone! Stop preventing me from working! In some way 
> that requires the least effort from all....
>
> Simply for Comrel to get out of the way, since 2008, preventing technical 
> progress.
>
>
Forgive me for potentially stating the (for some) obvious .. but as far
as I can tell, there's a good number of Gentoo developers working away
getting ebuilds committed and packages maintained without any
intervention from ComRel at all. Also, I don't think the whole of
ComRel, aside from Andreas himself, would actually get *anything* done
at all if they were constantly intervening in dev's work. Aside from
that, if there are issues with their work, it would be a QA function to
intervene. It would only Ever fall to ComRel to get involved if the QA
procedures continued to be flouted and it was to Gentoo's detriment to
allow the situation to continue.

So, if you have a personal vendetta against Andreas .. drop it or ***
off, you're never going to get anywhere here.

If you have a problem rejoining Gentoo as a dev (or other such
contributor) .. take it up with council per whatever issue prevails.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 06:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> Again in a court, if policies and procedures are not followed, a person cannot
>> be prosecuted, nor can that ruling withstand.
> Then go to council and appeal.  In a court, if policies and procedures
> aren't followed, it is on the defendant to bring suit against the
> plaintiff to assert that their rights were violated.  Go file your
> appeal already...

NeddySeagoon and Nick Vinson already pointed this out, but let me repeat 
this again: ComRel does not operate like a court. Someone who is subject 
to ComRel punishment does not get to see the evidence or learn who is 
the accuser.

Even if that person later appeals to Council, there is an imbalance. 
There is a "prosecution" (ComRel) and neutral "judges" (Council) but not 
any kind of defense.

There may be good reasons for all of that, but let's not pretend that 
this is like a court in any way.

> Once you've done that, come back and talk policy on
> how to reform ComRel.  Either that or give up on trying to get back in
> for now and just focus on trying to reform ComRel.

I think it is not necessary to have been subject of action and exhausted 
all possibilities of remedy before one can criticize the rules under 
which ComRel operates, actions of ComRel or their members, or what 
happens in case ComRel does not follow the rules.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

On 12/10/16 13:35, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> NP-Hardass wrote:
>> On 10/11/2016 06:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Again in a court, if policies and procedures are not followed, a
>>> person cannot
>>> be prosecuted, nor can that ruling withstand.
>> Then go to council and appeal.  In a court, if policies and procedures
>> aren't followed, it is on the defendant to bring suit against the
>> plaintiff to assert that their rights were violated.  Go file your
>> appeal already...
>
> NeddySeagoon and Nick Vinson already pointed this out, but let me
> repeat this again: ComRel does not operate like a court. Someone who
> is subject to ComRel punishment does not get to see the evidence or
> learn who is the accuser.
>
> Even if that person later appeals to Council, there is an imbalance.
> There is a "prosecution" (ComRel) and neutral "judges" (Council) but
> not any kind of defense.
>
> There may be good reasons for all of that, but let's not pretend that
> this is like a court in any way.
<snip>

I think Chi-Thanh has stumbled upon the crux of the problem as perceived
by a few people in this thread. It's not that there is so much a failure
in procedure or policy .. its the implementation and basic conceptual aims.

So, how many readers would feel 'better' about the situation if the
process was actually more Balanced .. that there was some form of
'defence' as Chi puts it. I'm not saying I have any idea how this may be
implemented, but from what I've seen, there hasn't even been any
opportunity *whatsoever* for the accused to explain or (attempt to)
justify their actions. This does give the impression that the process is
broken, as it acts in a totally one-sided way, and I can easily see that
I, too, wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of it, as everybody
points out, there is no ultimate recourse once things have gone 'over
the edge'.

I think there is definitely merit in some form of 'mediation' project or
sub-project or some-such function in Gentoo, that can act to resolve
interpersonal conflicts that may occur from cultural and/or language
differences between people, before they need referral to ComRel. Again,
no particular ideas on how/where this should reside or be implemented,
just that it might serve to to early resolution before problems
escalate. Thus not requiring ComRel to get involved, or severe actions
to be taken in lieu of any other methods being available/tried.

Apologies for the mangled articulation ... looks like I need a coffee .. :P

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

On 13/10/16 12:12, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 12/10/16 13:35, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> NP-Hardass wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2016 06:22 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>>> Again in a court, if policies and procedures are not followed, a
>>>> person cannot
>>>> be prosecuted, nor can that ruling withstand.
>>> Then go to council and appeal.  In a court, if policies and procedures
>>> aren't followed, it is on the defendant to bring suit against the
>>> plaintiff to assert that their rights were violated.  Go file your
>>> appeal already...
>> NeddySeagoon and Nick Vinson already pointed this out, but let me
>> repeat this again: ComRel does not operate like a court. Someone who
>> is subject to ComRel punishment does not get to see the evidence or
>> learn who is the accuser.
>>
>> Even if that person later appeals to Council, there is an imbalance.
>> There is a "prosecution" (ComRel) and neutral "judges" (Council) but
>> not any kind of defense.
>>
>> There may be good reasons for all of that, but let's not pretend that
>> this is like a court in any way.
> <snip>
>
> I think Chi-Thanh has stumbled upon the crux of the problem as perceived
> by a few people in this thread. It's not that there is so much a failure
> in procedure or policy .. its the implementation and basic conceptual aims.
>
> So, how many readers would feel 'better' about the situation if the
> process was actually more Balanced .. that there was some form of
> 'defence' as Chi puts it. I'm not saying I have any idea how this may be
> implemented, but from what I've seen, there hasn't even been any
> opportunity *whatsoever* for the accused to explain or (attempt to)
> justify their actions. This does give the impression that the process is
> broken, as it acts in a totally one-sided way, and I can easily see that
> I, too, wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of it, as everybody
> points out, there is no ultimate recourse once things have gone 'over
> the edge'.
>
> I think there is definitely merit in some form of 'mediation' project or
> sub-project or some-such function in Gentoo, that can act to resolve
> interpersonal conflicts that may occur from cultural and/or language
> differences between people, before they need referral to ComRel. Again,
> no particular ideas on how/where this should reside or be implemented,
> just that it might serve to to early resolution before problems
> escalate. Thus not requiring ComRel to get involved, or severe actions
> to be taken in lieu of any other methods being available/tried.
>
> Apologies for the mangled articulation ... looks like I need a coffee .. :P
>
Random follow-up thought ..

How about appeals called the accused to answer to Council as well as
ComRel .. would that ever work!?

[no, don't go flaming me down on this one .. !]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:17 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> On 13/10/16 12:12, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>
>> So, how many readers would feel 'better' about the situation if the
>> process was actually more Balanced .. that there was some form of
>> 'defence' as Chi puts it.
>
> How about appeals called the accused to answer to Council as well as
> ComRel .. would that ever work!?
>

In every appeal I've seen, Comrel did talk to the accused about what
happened to collect their side of the story, and the Council afforded
them the same opportunity to provide additional detail.

There wasn't anything like a cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses.

I think that a common pattern I'm seeing though is a misunderstanding
of the purpose of the Comrel process.  The goal isn't to argue whether
a particular rule was or wasn't violated (sure, that might be a part
of it, but it isn't the ultimate purpose).  The goal is to determine
whether somebody is likely to follow the CoC in the future.  At least,
that is how I see it.  That is really the same situation as with
interviews with incoming developers.  They don't have a history
(usually), but we're still interested in assessing whether they will
be responsible, positive contributors.

More serious issues are probably going to be harder to just overlook,
but in general my sense is that Comrel is not in a rush to run model
citizens out of town on the basis of a single complaint.  Again, I
haven't seen the details of many cases but from what I have seen and
heard my sense is that in the cases that tend to lead to people being
ushered out there end up being multiple people complaining.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

M. J. Everitt wrote:

> So, how many readers would feel 'better' about the situation if the
> process was actually more Balanced .. that there was some form of
> 'defence' as Chi puts it.

Note that I am not calling for introducing a defense. It would be one 
way to address the concerns voiced in this discussion, but that can be 
achieved in different ways too.

Actually what I would like to see most is a yearly critical review of 
ComRel activities by elected community members. This was suggested 
elsewhere in this discussion already. These reviewers should get full 
access to ComRel records and try hard to poke holes into everything that 
ComRel did that year. They then release their findings in a public 
summary, and provide a detailed report to Council.

The rest of the year the reviewers could be on standby, or their group 
disbanded, etc. Such details would need to be worked out in a formal 
proposal.

> I think there is definitely merit in some form of 'mediation' project or
> sub-project or some-such function in Gentoo, that can act to resolve
> interpersonal conflicts that may occur from cultural and/or language
> differences between people, before they need referral to ComRel.

If you look at Project:ComRel in the wiki, you will find "mediation" 
mentioned many times. I would support such a project only if it turns 
out that ComRel declined to include mediation in cases where it was 
called for by policy.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3012 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:40:08 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:

> 
> What policy is mentioned here as to my denial of ability to become a
> developer again?
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43

If you read the comments from 2015, the word I is used 5 times. To reflect an 
individuals opinion not all of comrel. 

In reading policies, it is clear the team lead continues to violate them 
acting with unilateral authority no individual has...

"The Process for the Resolution Conflicts
A member of Community Relations will be tasked to try and resolve disputes 
covered by this policy. Should such mediation fail, Community Relations will 
vote to resolve the issue. "

"If all attempts at mediation fail, the issue is escalated and a decision will 
be made by majority vote of Community Relations members; this process is 
detailed in the Policy and Process sections below."
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/
Project:ComRel#The_Process_for_the_Resolution_Conflicts

Telling me I have to request a vote of comrel goes directly against policy. 
They are supposed to vote for any action, which did not happen in 2015.

Every Comrel policy states they are supposed to try to mediate the matter 
before taking action.  Did any mediate take place in 2015? Who was the 
mediator?

Per the above it is clearly Andreas Hüttel is acting on his own. He stated his 
own personal opinion, not that of comrel. Yet he claims to represent all of 
comrel, who did not vote on the matter. Despite policy saying that must 
happen, more than once.

Per policy I am supposed to be given 3 days to present information before the 
vote takes place.

Per policy the only time comrel has any authority over a returning developer 
is when they were removed from the project. I was never removed I resigned. 
What policy gives comrel the right to change a persons status from retired to 
removed?

Removing me from the project was never on the table in 2008 or since. That 
comrel can change my status to give them further power/authority per policies, 
they selectively use is not documented anywhere.

No policy states a retired developer can have their status changed to removed 
from retired. Thus without that, per policy, comrel has no right to get 
involved in my recruiting process nor has veto power.

The list of policy violations is quite extensive, and I am just talking about 
2015. Anyone can easily see that history for themselves.

I will close with a final example of how policies are not followed.

"In case a disciplinary action is applied, one of the ComRel members must e-
mail the offender as soon as possible informing him of the situation and 
possible consequences for repetitive violations."

Where is that email? The one in the bug is a final consequence email. Where is 
the one informing me of the situation and possible consequences?

Where has comrel ever followed their own policies....

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2428 bytes --]



On 10/11/2016 12:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any appeal.
>> You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be appealing to
>> council.
> 
> The onus of any appeal is on you.  If he felt that there was anything
> to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in the first place.  An appeal is
> the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
> part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
> that there was nothing wrong with his decision.  That doesn't mean
> that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
> going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
> advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
> in the first place.

This isn't a fair comparison.  When a judge makes a decision it and the
events surrounding it are logged in the court transcript which is
typically public.  At most, the judge makes a decision and writes an
'opinion' that says what that decision was and how he reached it.

My understanding is some one wishing to appeal a Comrel decision does so
almost completely blind.  It's not possible to know exactly what
complaint(s) were filed against you, how Comrel came to its decision,
and assuming the decision is flawed, what the flawed parts are.  To me
it sounds like Comrel is very much a "black box".  Complaints go in, and
if the device warrants it, a punitive decision comes out.

If that account is incorrect, I'd appreciate anyone pointing out what I
got wrong, but as I'm writing this, Comrel's handling of things is
world's apart from how a typical court does it.

That said, I'm not suggesting Comrel start writing "opinions" to justify
their actions, but I am pointing out that William's frustration with
being told he can appeal, but without any actionable information is a
common thread I've heard from a few people who have had direct dealings
with Comrel.

Thanks,
Nicholas Vinson

> 
> If you disagree with something Comrel did, then appeal whatever it is
> that you disagree with.  If you're fine with it, then don't.  Either
> way, if you don't appeal (either to Comrel as a whole or Council)
> nothing is likely to change regarding your specific case.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Nick Vinson wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2016 12:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>> As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any appeal.
>>> You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be appealing to
>>> council.
>> The onus of any appeal is on you.  If he felt that there was anything
>> to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in the first place.  An appeal is
>> the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
>> part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
>> that there was nothing wrong with his decision.  That doesn't mean
>> that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
>> going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
>> advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
>> in the first place.
> This isn't a fair comparison.  When a judge makes a decision it and the
> events surrounding it are logged in the court transcript which is
> typically public.  At most, the judge makes a decision and writes an
> 'opinion' that says what that decision was and how he reached it.
>
> My understanding is some one wishing to appeal a Comrel decision does so
> almost completely blind.  It's not possible to know exactly what
> complaint(s) were filed against you, how Comrel came to its decision,
> and assuming the decision is flawed, what the flawed parts are.  To me
> it sounds like Comrel is very much a "black box".  Complaints go in, and
> if the device warrants it, a punitive decision comes out.
>
> If that account is incorrect, I'd appreciate anyone pointing out what I
> got wrong, but as I'm writing this, Comrel's handling of things is
> world's apart from how a typical court does it.
>
> That said, I'm not suggesting Comrel start writing "opinions" to justify
> their actions, but I am pointing out that William's frustration with
> being told he can appeal, but without any actionable information is a
> common thread I've heard from a few people who have had direct dealings
> with Comrel.
>
> Thanks,
> Nicholas Vinson
>
>> If you disagree with something Comrel did, then appeal whatever it is
>> that you disagree with.  If you're fine with it, then don't.  Either
>> way, if you don't appeal (either to Comrel as a whole or Council)
>> nothing is likely to change regarding your specific case.
>>


I'm hesitant to reply but I think I see a theme here.  I'm also sort of
picking a random post to reply to as well.  I help Admin a political
website so I'm used to trying to piece together things that don't always
fit together.  I'm also used to rules changing and even roles changing
as well.  Further info, I been around Gentoo since about 2003.  I've
seen some things going on that is wrong and Gentoo struggling to fix it,
some worked out well, some not so much.  I was also here when the
mailing lists were a disaster.  The forums wasn't to far behind either. 
I've seen Gentoo in very poor shape.  Even now, I'm a bit concerned
about Gentoo.  It seems the bureaucracy is growing and the people that
have to deal with it is shrinking. 

It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
like.  As to what that was, I do NOT know so I don't know how severe it
was or even if it could have resulted in a forced removal from Gentoo. 
Then someone complained to whatever policing authority there was at the
time and they started looking into it.  Since William held a couple
positions within Gentoo, lead of a project and a Trustee, the process
never seemed to have completed because William resigned as Trustee and
retired as a developer, not just lead but developer as a whole. 
Basically, he left Gentoo.   It seems to me that William left before a
complete ruling, vote or opinion was ever made.  I think the point that
William is making is that since no ruling, vote or opinion was ever
made, there is nothing to appeal to the council.  Perhaps if someone
from that body could email that to him, if it was done, then he would
know what he is appealing.  From what I gather, William never got
anything since the process never seemed to have completed due to his
leaving Gentoo. 

The other side of the coin.  It seems ComRel took William's leaving as
some sort of a admission of guilt and is making current judgments as if
that is the case.  If no admission was ever made, then that isn't
correct.  Either go back and finish the process or leave it retired to
the files so to speak and move on.  If there was a vote, opinion, or
ruling made, then William seems to have no knowledge of it and he needs
to be advised of what was decided

I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
to address the previous problem.  The thing is, it would be on me or
staff to inform the member that when they left before, they left
unfinished business that needs to be addressed.  If it is minor, I may
not bring it up but chose to watch and see how they act.  If it is
serious, then I would notify them.  In this case, it seems William was
notified that there was a problem, he left Gentoo and either no decision
was ever made OR he was never notified that one was made.  Based on my
understanding, someone either needs to share the end result of the
complaint against William or they need to go back and finish the process. 

To help correct this problem in the future, it may be wise to have a
policy that says that once a complaint is made, it has to go through the
entire process, even if the person leaves Gentoo completely and refuses
to respond to the complaint.  If the person ever wants to return, they
can then know where they stand without having to post a thread with a
ton of replies that really haven't corrected anything.  They would also
know what it is they would have to appeal as well. 

This is my take based on my piecing this together over the past couple
days or so.  There is a lot that is unknown on this tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
> like.

That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
something to do with something he posted?

> I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
> site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
> to address the previous problem.

That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal where
the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
concerned about in an appeal.

Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow
the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in
the past are subject to more scrutiny.

Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
courts often work this way.

However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
most is that it comes up with the right decision.

So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules
as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an
independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which
were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the
parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
handled.

And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good
member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated.
If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of
it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll
ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending
you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't
exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC
is being followed and is likely to be followed.

So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact
positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to
object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of
speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I disagree
with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced
those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules
as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the Comrel
process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or
somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a very
broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become
more public knowledge.

I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  However,
any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to
be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right.
However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
Comrel to deal with people who do so.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On 12/10/2016 12:51, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to 
> change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just
> interact positively with the community and nobody is going to have
> something to object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or
> be afraid of speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to
> try to maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with
> respect, and you do need to follow the rules.

+1

It may be really frustrating though if William doesn't get clear
feedback from Recruiters or Comrel.

I'm not sure how much this thread is accomplishing. It seems it's up to
William to take this to Recruiters/Comrel/Council (even if it'd be
somewhat vague, maybe it could appear on the agenda), and try to make
some progress there.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. 
<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 12:51, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>  You really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
>>  change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just
>>  interact positively with the community and nobody is going to have
>>  something to object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy 
>> or
>>  be afraid of speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to
>>  try to maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with
>>  respect, and you do need to follow the rules.
> 
> +1
> 
> It may be really frustrating though if William doesn't get clear
> feedback from Recruiters or Comrel.
> 
> I'm not sure how much this thread is accomplishing. It seems it's up 
> to
> William to take this to Recruiters/Comrel/Council (even if it'd be
> somewhat vague, maybe it could appear on the agenda), and try to make
> some progress there.

In the hypothetical case of "he already tried that", what is his 
recourse?

If hypothetical he is a good developer but either already burned his 
bridges or he drowned in red tape, should he give up and find greener 
pastures?  Or should he try to  keep fitting in?

Also, how much does his trustee status figure into his potential future 
value to the gentoo community?

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9311 bytes --]



On 10/12/2016 03:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>> like.
> 
> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
> something to do with something he posted?
> 
>> I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
>> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
>> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
>> site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
>> to address the previous problem.
> 
> That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal where
> the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
> was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
> concerned about in an appeal.
> 
> Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow
> the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
> violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
> they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in
> the past are subject to more scrutiny.
> 
> Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
> process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
> understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
> supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
> whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
> courts often work this way.
> 
> However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
> somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
> the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
> and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
> most is that it comes up with the right decision.

This is what all the discussion about accountability and traceability is
for.  It's to propose a method to confirm that ComRel and bodies like
ComRel are functioning as attended.  Furthermore, one suggested method
was periodic (I believe monthly was suggested earlier) statistics on
relevant metrics.  That way you have actual snapshots of what's going on
and can easily identify any undesirable trends (definition of
undesirable trends to be determined later).  I'll also reiterate what's
been pointed out earlier.  Council's ability to review when appeals are
filed isn't sufficient since appeals do not happen on a regular basis
and do not grant the Council the ability to see the "whole ComRel"
operation.  Instead, the appeals are to focus on the issue(s) mentioned
in the appeal.

> 
> So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
> it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
> followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules
> as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an

And that could be a problem, but it might not be.  It *is* a problem if
it turns out that the Council's handling of appeals are inconsistent.
However, I believe you said you've only seen 2 appeals since becoming a
councilor which means there's hardly enough information to make a
determination either way.

> independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which

I'm a bit uneasy with the "independent evaluation" claim.  I understand
there's no rule banning ComRel members from serving on the Council
simultaneously and that ComRel Councilors are expected to recuse
themselves.  However, it still feels like a stretch to claim the Council
performed an "independent evaluation" when the number of Councilors
performing that evaluation are less than what you'd get if they were
debating changing Gentoo's color scheme.

Then, as I pointed out in #gentoo-council, it's possible, but unlikely,
under the current system for all Council members to also be ComRel
members.  If such a situation did occur, then one of two things would
have to happen.  Either a. appeals are no longer possible until someone
who is not part of ComRel is elected to the Council or b. Council
reviews are no longer "independent evaluations", but instead a second
review by ComRel.

Personally, I'd like the rules updated so its guaranteed the above can
never happen.

> were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the
> parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
> handled.
> 
> And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
> this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good
> member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
> behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated.
> If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
> I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of
> it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
> separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
> complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll
> ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending
> you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't

That approach isn't good.  If you expect everyone to follow rules and
procedures, you have to hold the Council applicable as well.  If Comrel
did not follow the procedures, private admonishment isn't sufficient.
You've still punished a dev who will feel the punishment was unfair and
that he has been cheated in some way.  This outcome will drive
developers away and in some cases already has (and I don't mean just the
ones on the receiving end of ComRel's decisions).

In such cases, ComRel's decision should be reversed, reduced,
*something* to show not only the dev in question, but the community at
large, that there is a single set of rules and procedures that all abide by.

Anything else just encourages complaints of laziness and or corruption.

> exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
> it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC
> is being followed and is likely to be followed.

Again, for the purposes of appeal under the current system, you have to
ensure that *all*  parties involved have followed the CoC.  That
includes ComRel as well.  Otherwise, more and more people are going to
lose faith that the current system works.

The more people who lose faith, the more often threads like these well
appear, or Gentoo will eventually die because it's losing volunteers
faster than it can replace them.

> 
> So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
> say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
> really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
> change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact
> positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to
> object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of
> speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
> maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
> and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I disagree
> with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced
> those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
> productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules
> as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
> There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
> corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
> as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the Comrel
> process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or
> somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
> argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
> apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a very
> broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
> about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become
> more public knowledge.
> 
> I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
> certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  However,
> any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to
> be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
> CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
> that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right.
> However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
> argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
> away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
> Comrel to deal with people who do so.

How do you define "unreasonably high"?  If ComRel is going to enforce
the CoC, then its members should be setting an example.  Council should
be held to the same requirements (and possibly a bit higher standard).

-Nicholas Vinson
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10281 bytes --]

On 10/12/2016 09:58 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/12/2016 03:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>>> like.
>>
>> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
>> something to do with something he posted?
>>
>>> I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
>>> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
>>> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
>>> site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
>>> to address the previous problem.
>>
>> That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal where
>> the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
>> was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
>> concerned about in an appeal.
>>
>> Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow
>> the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
>> violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
>> they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in
>> the past are subject to more scrutiny.
>>
>> Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
>> process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
>> understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
>> supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
>> whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
>> courts often work this way.
>>
>> However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
>> somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
>> the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
>> and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
>> most is that it comes up with the right decision.
> 
> This is what all the discussion about accountability and traceability is
> for.  It's to propose a method to confirm that ComRel and bodies like
> ComRel are functioning as attended.  Furthermore, one suggested method
> was periodic (I believe monthly was suggested earlier) statistics on
> relevant metrics.  That way you have actual snapshots of what's going on
> and can easily identify any undesirable trends (definition of
> undesirable trends to be determined later).  I'll also reiterate what's
> been pointed out earlier.  Council's ability to review when appeals are
> filed isn't sufficient since appeals do not happen on a regular basis
> and do not grant the Council the ability to see the "whole ComRel"
> operation.  Instead, the appeals are to focus on the issue(s) mentioned
> in the appeal.
> 
>>
>> So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
>> it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
>> followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules
>> as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an
> 
> And that could be a problem, but it might not be.  It *is* a problem if
> it turns out that the Council's handling of appeals are inconsistent.
> However, I believe you said you've only seen 2 appeals since becoming a
> councilor which means there's hardly enough information to make a
> determination either way.
> 
>> independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which
> 
> I'm a bit uneasy with the "independent evaluation" claim.  I understand
> there's no rule banning ComRel members from serving on the Council
> simultaneously and that ComRel Councilors are expected to recuse
> themselves.  However, it still feels like a stretch to claim the Council
> performed an "independent evaluation" when the number of Councilors
> performing that evaluation are less than what you'd get if they were
> debating changing Gentoo's color scheme.

From the CoC directly:
"If disciplinary measures are taken and the affected person wishes to
appeal, appeals should be addressed to the Gentoo Council via email at
council@gentoo.org. To prevent conflicts of interest, Council members
are expected not to participate in appeals proceedings if they have been
active in the respective Community Relations code of conduct case."

Yes, ComRel are expected to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal.

ComRel and Council are expected to abide by the CoC.  There is an
explicit rule barring the behavior that you allege is a problem.
> 
> Then, as I pointed out in #gentoo-council, it's possible, but unlikely,
> under the current system for all Council members to also be ComRel
> members.  If such a situation did occur, then one of two things would
> have to happen.  Either a. appeals are no longer possible until someone
> who is not part of ComRel is elected to the Council or b. Council
> reviews are no longer "independent evaluations", but instead a second
> review by ComRel.
> 
> Personally, I'd like the rules updated so its guaranteed the above can
> never happen.
> 
>> were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the
>> parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
>> handled.
>>
>> And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
>> this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good
>> member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
>> behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated.
>> If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
>> I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of
>> it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
>> separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
>> complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll
>> ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending
>> you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't
> 
> That approach isn't good.  If you expect everyone to follow rules and
> procedures, you have to hold the Council applicable as well.  If Comrel
> did not follow the procedures, private admonishment isn't sufficient.
> You've still punished a dev who will feel the punishment was unfair and
> that he has been cheated in some way.  This outcome will drive
> developers away and in some cases already has (and I don't mean just the
> ones on the receiving end of ComRel's decisions).
> 
> In such cases, ComRel's decision should be reversed, reduced,
> *something* to show not only the dev in question, but the community at
> large, that there is a single set of rules and procedures that all abide by.
> 
> Anything else just encourages complaints of laziness and or corruption.
> 
>> exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
>> it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC
>> is being followed and is likely to be followed.
> 
> Again, for the purposes of appeal under the current system, you have to
> ensure that *all*  parties involved have followed the CoC.  That
> includes ComRel as well.  Otherwise, more and more people are going to
> lose faith that the current system works.
> 
> The more people who lose faith, the more often threads like these well
> appear, or Gentoo will eventually die because it's losing volunteers
> faster than it can replace them.
> 
Please stop the endless fearmongering that we live in a dictatorship.
>>
>> So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
>> say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
>> really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
>> change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact
>> positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to
>> object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of
>> speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
>> maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
>> and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I disagree
>> with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced
>> those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
>> productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules
>> as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
>> There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
>> corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
>> as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the Comrel
>> process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or
>> somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
>> argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
>> apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a very
>> broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
>> about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become
>> more public knowledge.
>>
>> I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
>> certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  However,
>> any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to
>> be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
>> CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
>> that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right.
>> However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
>> argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
>> away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
>> Comrel to deal with people who do so.
> 
> How do you define "unreasonably high"?  If ComRel is going to enforce
> the CoC, then its members should be setting an example.  Council should
> be held to the same requirements (and possibly a bit higher standard).
> 
> -Nicholas Vinson
>>
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1885 bytes --]

On 10/12/2016 08:30 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 09:58 AM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I'm a bit uneasy with the "independent evaluation" claim.  I understand
>> there's no rule banning ComRel members from serving on the Council
>> simultaneously and that ComRel Councilors are expected to recuse
>> themselves.  However, it still feels like a stretch to claim the Council
>> performed an "independent evaluation" when the number of Councilors
>> performing that evaluation are less than what you'd get if they were
>> debating changing Gentoo's color scheme.
> 
> From the CoC directly:
> "If disciplinary measures are taken and the affected person wishes to
> appeal, appeals should be addressed to the Gentoo Council via email at
> council@gentoo.org. To prevent conflicts of interest, Council members
> are expected not to participate in appeals proceedings if they have been
> active in the respective Community Relations code of conduct case."
> 
> Yes, ComRel are expected to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal.
> 
> ComRel and Council are expected to abide by the CoC.  There is an
> explicit rule barring the behavior that you allege is a problem.

To be fair, "expected to" is quite different from "required to". Should
someone choose not to recuse themselves, what then? That's the part
that's rather telling about the old wiki edit. It was changed from clear
language barring them from being on council to "expected to recuse
themselves". It's weak language that leaves it to the discretion of the
comrel+council member, with no policy-driven consequences for choosing
not to recuse themselves.

This is similar to an RFC changing something from MUST to MAY.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1663 bytes --]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:51:09 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
> > like.
> 
> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
> something to do with something he posted?

In 2008 it was about a post to a public list, and that is on the archives. A 
post was unruly, violated CoC. Led to a blind mailing list ban. I went around 
ban with 1 post. Days later Devrel wanted to suspend me for 15 days. I 
disagreed with the punishment, preventing development for 15 days. I left. I 
ave them their 15 days + 8 years.

Most attempts to return did not get that bad just did not go anywhere. What 
happened in 2015 should not have occurred. Things have gotten much worse!
 
> However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
> somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
> the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
> and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
> most is that it comes up with the right decision.

If you look at the comments on my bug from 2015, no research was done. No one 
from comrel spoke to anyone I had worked with or was working with. The only 
ones I have issue with are members of comrel, mostly just a few individuals 
not the entire body.

I ask anyone who has seen me conduct myself in an unprofessional manner at any 
point to say so publicly. That will be very few if any because it simply is 
not the case.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>> like.
> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
> something to do with something he posted?

OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a mailing
list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing nothing
at all?  If that is the case, then Gentoo and ComRel has much larger
problems than it seems.  While I said "posted", I basically meant he
said or did something that was not to someone's liking.  I'm basing that
on what William wrote himself.  I seem to recall he said he was banned
from a mailing list in one of the many posts here or in a link he
posted.  It would seem to me that he posted something on that mailing
list that someone felt shouldn't be posted.  My email is not a legal
document where I must include each and every single thing that may or
may not need to be listed.  My email was my take on the topic based on
what I read.  I might add, I was here when this happened.  I do have a
very vague recollection of it.  I suspect that I saw some spill over
threads and not the original cause of it tho.  I'm certainly not basing
my replies on what I recall about it.  That's way to long ago. 

>
>> I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the rules, I
>> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of
>> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
>> site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would have
>> to address the previous problem.
> That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal where
> the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
> was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
> concerned about in an appeal.

I agree.  No one should have action taken on them without the person
first being warned.

>
> Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow
> the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
> violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
> they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in
> the past are subject to more scrutiny.

I think the question here is this.  Was the ban from the mailing list
all of it punishment wise or was there some secret discussion later that
lead to William being effectively blacklisted?  If what William did was
that bad, shouldn't he be told, whether he left Gentoo or not?  On the
site I help with, when I ban someone, they are notified of why they are
banned.  They are also given a email address to email to appeal the
ban.  On that site, it is done automatically by the software.  In this
situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
decision, if one was made at all.  Again, this is happening in what
others call a black box. 

>
> Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
> process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
> understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
> supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
> whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
> courts often work this way.
>
> However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
> somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
> the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved,
> and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the
> most is that it comes up with the right decision.
>
> So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
> it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
> followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules
> as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an
> independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which
> were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the
> parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
> handled.

I agree mostly here as well.  I also believe that William needs to
appeal the decision, whatever that was or if one was ever made beyond
the email ban.  Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
seem that a official decision was made.  Again, black box that we can't
see into. 


>
> And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
> this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good
> member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
> behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated.
> If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
> I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of
> it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
> separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
> complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll
> ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending
> you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't
> exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
> it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC
> is being followed and is likely to be followed.

I can see this point as well.  As I mentioned before, I was here when
the mailing lists were a disaster.  It was a long time ago but I recall
it being bad.  Even tho today no one actually seems to read every post,
people do know that there is a policing body that can deal with the
occasional problem.  It's sort of like driving by a police car that is
very visible.  It's natural to make sure you are within the law as you
drive by.  We do have the occasional spammer or something that pops up
and then disappears.  I recall seeing someone post that a good while
back.  Just knowing that the mailing lists are being policed helps keep
it within reason.  I wouldn't want that gone either.  I wouldn't want
the mailing lists to go back to what they used to be years ago.  If the
goal William has is to get rid of ComRel, that likely won't end well. 
Changes to ComRel if needed, sure.  End it, I hope not. 

>
> So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
> say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
> really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
> change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact
> positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to
> object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of
> speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
> maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
> and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I disagree
> with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced
> those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
> productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules
> as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
> There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
> corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
> as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the Comrel
> process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or
> somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
> argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
> apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a very
> broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
> about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become
> more public knowledge.

I have to do the same thing on the site I help with.  There are rules I
don't agree with but I still have to enforce them.  If I don't, then I
need to either step down on my own or will be forced to leave.  As you
say, if William has a problem with something, speak up and explain what
is wrong but do it within the current rules. 

>
> I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
> certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  However,
> any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to
> be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
> CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
> that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right.
> However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
> argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
> away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
> Comrel to deal with people who do so.
>

I think part of the problem may be the "black box" method currently is
use.  I know on the site I help on, staff knows and sees things that
members can't see.  As a example, someone posts a reply that clearly
violates the rules and then immediately deletes the post.  We as staff
can see that deleted post.  Regular members can't see it tho.  If staff
takes action on that post, then the members have no idea what happened
to cause the action.  Members are running around complaining that we
restricted/banned someone for nothing because they can't see the post we
see.  Thing is, we know we did the right thing.  Just like with ComRel
tho, we can't post a screenshot or anything that shows why the action
was taken.  Members remain clueless and sometimes angry.  This is
basically where we are, and maybe William too.  We don't know what
happened in the black box.  Until William appeals it, he may not know
either. 

This is likely my last reply.  While I would like to see Gentoo improved
and all, I have to much going on in the real world to spend time
debating it.  I just felt the need to make my post in case it would
help.  If it doesn't, Gentoo is still Gentoo. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

Is there even an official decision for william to appeal?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>  On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  It seems to me that William posted something that someone else 
>>> didn't
>>>  like.
>>  That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it 
>> has
>>  something to do with something he posted?
> 
> OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a mailing
> list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing nothing
> at all?  If that is the case, then Gentoo and ComRel has much larger
> problems than it seems.  While I said "posted", I basically meant he
> said or did something that was not to someone's liking.  I'm basing 
> that
> on what William wrote himself.  I seem to recall he said he was banned
> from a mailing list in one of the many posts here or in a link he
> posted.  It would seem to me that he posted something on that mailing
> list that someone felt shouldn't be posted.  My email is not a legal
> document where I must include each and every single thing that may or
> may not need to be listed.  My email was my take on the topic based on
> what I read.  I might add, I was here when this happened.  I do have a
> very vague recollection of it.  I suspect that I saw some spill over
> threads and not the original cause of it tho.  I'm certainly not 
> basing
> my replies on what I recall about it.  That's way to long ago.
> 
>> 
>>>  I mentioned I help admin a website.  If someone violates the 
>>> rules, I
>>>  contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead 
>>> of
>>>  dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the
>>>  site.  It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would 
>>> have
>>>  to address the previous problem.
>>  That is basically the same as Gentoo.  I've yet to see an appeal 
>> where
>>  the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern
>>  was.  If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be
>>  concerned about in an appeal.
> 
> I agree.  No one should have action taken on them without the person
> first being warned.
> 
>> 
>>  Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to 
>> follow
>>  the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have
>>  violated it 8+ years ago.  ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that
>>  they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it 
>> in
>>  the past are subject to more scrutiny.
> 
> I think the question here is this.  Was the ban from the mailing list
> all of it punishment wise or was there some secret discussion later 
> that
> lead to William being effectively blacklisted?  If what William did 
> was
> that bad, shouldn't he be told, whether he left Gentoo or not?  On the
> site I help with, when I ban someone, they are notified of why they 
> are
> banned.  They are also given a email address to email to appeal the
> ban.  On that site, it is done automatically by the software.  In this
> situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
> decision, if one was made at all.  Again, this is happening in what
> others call a black box.
> 
>> 
>>  Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to
>>  process and procedure within Comrel.  The concern is nobody
>>  understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were
>>  supposed to follow.  When appeals are discussed they're in terms of
>>  whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job.  I get that
>>  courts often work this way.
>> 
>>  However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome.  Is
>>  somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not?  Are they able to follow
>>  the CoC, or not?  Perhaps the way the black box works can be 
>> improved,
>>  and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters 
>> the
>>  most is that it comes up with the right decision.
>> 
>>  So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal
>>  it.  I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel
>>  followed.  As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any 
>> rules
>>  as to how it judges appeals.  Ultimately what you'll get is an
>>  independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which
>>  were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of 
>> the
>>  parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be
>>  handled.
> 
> I agree mostly here as well.  I also believe that William needs to
> appeal the decision, whatever that was or if one was ever made beyond
> the email ban.  Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
> seem that a official decision was made.  Again, black box that we 
> can't
> see into.
> 
> 
>> 
>>  And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in
>>  this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a 
>> good
>>  member of the community.  If the basis of your appeal is that your
>>  behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is 
>> defeated.
>>  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well,
>>  I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out 
>> of
>>  it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a
>>  separate matter.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't
>>  complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe 
>> we'll
>>  ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after 
>> sending
>>  you on your way.  If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel 
>> shouldn't
>>  exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to
>>  it.  Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the 
>> CoC
>>  is being followed and is likely to be followed.
> 
> I can see this point as well.  As I mentioned before, I was here when
> the mailing lists were a disaster.  It was a long time ago but I 
> recall
> it being bad.  Even tho today no one actually seems to read every 
> post,
> people do know that there is a policing body that can deal with the
> occasional problem.  It's sort of like driving by a police car that is
> very visible.  It's natural to make sure you are within the law as you
> drive by.  We do have the occasional spammer or something that pops up
> and then disappears.  I recall seeing someone post that a good while
> back.  Just knowing that the mailing lists are being policed helps 
> keep
> it within reason.  I wouldn't want that gone either.  I wouldn't want
> the mailing lists to go back to what they used to be years ago.  If 
> the
> goal William has is to get rid of ComRel, that likely won't end well.
> Changes to ComRel if needed, sure.  End it, I hope not.
> 
>> 
>>  So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to
>>  say.  Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody.  You
>>  really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to
>>  change.  And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just 
>> interact
>>  positively with the community and nobody is going to have something 
>> to
>>  object to.  You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid 
>> of
>>  speaking up when you disagree.  However, you do need to try to
>>  maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect,
>>  and you do need to follow the rules.  There are cases where I 
>> disagree
>>  with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've 
>> voiced
>>  those publicly.  However, that doesn't stop me from working
>>  productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the 
>> rules
>>  as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it.
>>  There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their
>>  corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long
>>  as they follow QA policy.  The people who get dragged into the 
>> Comrel
>>  process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), 
>> or
>>  somethings on the mailing lists.  Often it is just an
>>  argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just
>>  apologizing and changing they double down and dig in.  That is a 
>> very
>>  broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear
>>  about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they 
>> become
>>  more public knowledge.
> 
> I have to do the same thing on the site I help with.  There are rules 
> I
> don't agree with but I still have to enforce them.  If I don't, then I
> need to either step down on my own or will be forced to leave.  As you
> say, if William has a problem with something, speak up and explain 
> what
> is wrong but do it within the current rules.
> 
>> 
>>  I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter.  I'm
>>  certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement.  
>> However,
>>  any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need 
>> to
>>  be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the
>>  CoC.  If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something
>>  that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't 
>> right.
>>  However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right
>>  argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get
>>  away with it.  Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for
>>  Comrel to deal with people who do so.
>> 
> 
> I think part of the problem may be the "black box" method currently is
> use.  I know on the site I help on, staff knows and sees things that
> members can't see.  As a example, someone posts a reply that clearly
> violates the rules and then immediately deletes the post.  We as staff
> can see that deleted post.  Regular members can't see it tho.  If 
> staff
> takes action on that post, then the members have no idea what happened
> to cause the action.  Members are running around complaining that we
> restricted/banned someone for nothing because they can't see the post 
> we
> see.  Thing is, we know we did the right thing.  Just like with ComRel
> tho, we can't post a screenshot or anything that shows why the action
> was taken.  Members remain clueless and sometimes angry.  This is
> basically where we are, and maybe William too.  We don't know what
> happened in the black box.  Until William appeals it, he may not know
> either.
> 
> This is likely my last reply.  While I would like to see Gentoo 
> improved
> and all, I have to much going on in the real world to spend time
> debating it.  I just felt the need to make my post in case it would
> help.  If it doesn't, Gentoo is still Gentoo.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Is there even an official decision for william to appeal?
>

Based on what William has posted, and no one to suggest otherwise, I
think the only decision was to remove his mailing list privileges for 15
days.  It seems that William didn't agree with that decision and chose
to leave Gentoo.  I can see William's point when he asks what it is that
he is supposed to appeal.  Since the 15 days ended ages ago, I'm not
sure what was done that leads to him not being allowed to become a dev
again.

To be short, there doesn't seem to be one. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>>> like.
>> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
>> something to do with something he posted?
>
> OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a mailing
> list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing nothing
> at all?

No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns.  It
might or might not have something to do with something he posted
(which to me implies something written on an online public forum).

> In this
> situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
> decision, if one was made at all.

How do you know what William was or was not advised of?

> Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
> seem that a official decision was made.

And why would you expect his posts here to shed light on what is
happening?  Anything "official" on this matter isn't going to be
published on a mailing list.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

William, have you tried appealing and if so, what came of it?

I think as confidential information, only you have the right to 
disclose it.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>  On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  It seems to me that William posted something that someone else 
>>>> didn't
>>>>  like.
>>>  That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it 
>>> has
>>>  something to do with something he posted?
>> 
>>  OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a 
>> mailing
>>  list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing 
>> nothing
>>  at all?
> 
> No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns.  It
> might or might not have something to do with something he posted
> (which to me implies something written on an online public forum).
> 
>>  In this
>>  situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
>>  decision, if one was made at all.
> 
> How do you know what William was or was not advised of?
> 
>>  Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
>>  seem that a official decision was made.
> 
> And why would you expect his posts here to shed light on what is
> happening?  Anything "official" on this matter isn't going to be
> published on a mailing list.
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't
>>>> like.
>>> That seems like a pretty big assumption.  How do you know that it has
>>> something to do with something he posted?
>> OK.  Are you saying he did nothing wrong and was banned from a mailing
>> list, resigned as trustee and retired as a developer for doing nothing
>> at all?
> No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns.  It
> might or might not have something to do with something he posted
> (which to me implies something written on an online public forum).

And I thought I said that in my first reply.  When I say it seems, it
means that that is what it looks like.  Since you likely have no more
info on this than I do, you don't know that either, right?  Maybe this
will help:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/seem

>
>> In this
>> situation tho, it seems that William has not been advised of that
>> decision, if one was made at all.
> How do you know what William was or was not advised of?

Because of his posts, it would seem he was not.  Otherwise, why would he
keep asking what it is he is appealing?   It wouldn't make sense to
appeal his 15 day suspension that ended ages ago would it?  Something
else was decided that is preventing him from returning and if he doesn't
know, then it would seem he was not told. 


>
>> Personally, based on William's posts here, it doesn't
>> seem that a official decision was made.
> And why would you expect his posts here to shed light on what is
> happening?  Anything "official" on this matter isn't going to be
> published on a mailing list.
>

Which is why he should take this to the council.  I'm not sure that
appeal is the right term for it but I guess it would be a start at
least.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns.  It
>> might or might not have something to do with something he posted
>> (which to me implies something written on an online public forum).
>
> And I thought I said that in my first reply.  When I say it seems, it
> means that that is what it looks like.  Since you likely have no more
> info on this than I do, you don't know that either, right?  Maybe this
> will help:

If I did I probably wouldn't comment on the matter, and the
conversation would be even more one-sided.

>> How do you know what William was or was not advised of?
>
> Because of his posts, it would seem he was not.  Otherwise, why would he
> keep asking what it is he is appealing?

You would have to ask him.

If he doesn't think Comrel is doing something, why is he posting here
in the first place?  If he does thing Comrel is doing something, why
not just appeal it?

>
> Which is why he should take this to the council.  I'm not sure that
> appeal is the right term for it but I guess it would be a start at
> least.  ;-)
>

Anybody can ask the Council to take up anything.  I can't promise the
Council actually will, but there is a reason we send out those monthly
emails calling for agenda items.  You don't need to request an appeal
in public, you just need to ask for one.  At worst we'll try to be
helpful and tell you want to do before appealing if we don't think the
matter is ripe for an appeal.  Believe it or not we're not actually
out to get people.

For whatever reason the Comrel decisions are documented in a public
bug in this case.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> No, I'm saying that you have no idea what led to these concerns.  It
>>> might or might not have something to do with something he posted
>>> (which to me implies something written on an online public forum).
>> And I thought I said that in my first reply.  When I say it seems, it
>> means that that is what it looks like.  Since you likely have no more
>> info on this than I do, you don't know that either, right?  Maybe this
>> will help:
> If I did I probably wouldn't comment on the matter, and the
> conversation would be even more one-sided.
>
>>> How do you know what William was or was not advised of?
>> Because of his posts, it would seem he was not.  Otherwise, why would he
>> keep asking what it is he is appealing?
> You would have to ask him.

I'm not sure it is needed.  He has posted that he doesn't know what he
would be appealing.  Or is it like the other replies where everything
has to go through a lawyer and be written in a way that there is
absolutely no doubt before one can just read what he posted and figure
it out?  If he knows, why would he be asking? 


>
> If he doesn't think Comrel is doing something, why is he posting here
> in the first place?  If he does thing Comrel is doing something, why
> not just appeal it?

Based on what I have seen in the past few days, in this thread and in
links posted in this thread, I'd say it is because he isn't getting
responses from ComRel and he doesn't know what it is that he would be
appealing.  It would also seem that the people that he is working with
to become a developer again don't know either.  If I was a recruiter, I
wouldn't spend time working with someone who is banned from ever
rejoining Gentoo.  It's not like Gentoo has a overabundance of people
with to much time on their hands or anything.  If I were banned from
Gentoo, I wouldn't waste my time trying to rejoin either.  Odds are, I
also would rejoin even if asked.  I'd spend my time elsewhere doing
something else. 

>> Which is why he should take this to the council.  I'm not sure that
>> appeal is the right term for it but I guess it would be a start at
>> least.  ;-)
>>
> Anybody can ask the Council to take up anything.  I can't promise the
> Council actually will, but there is a reason we send out those monthly
> emails calling for agenda items.  You don't need to request an appeal
> in public, you just need to ask for one.  At worst we'll try to be
> helpful and tell you want to do before appealing if we don't think the
> matter is ripe for an appeal.  Believe it or not we're not actually
> out to get people.
>
> For whatever reason the Comrel decisions are documented in a public
> bug in this case.
>

So, it is publicly stated that William can't return to Gentoo on a bug? 
I don't recall seeing that linked to in this thread.  Based on William's
posts, I'm not sure he is aware of it either. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8468 bytes --]

Starting a new thread since this goes beyond the original's topic.

On 10/11/2016 08:25 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 12:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As lead of Comrel you should specifically addressing the topic of any appeal.
>>> You should be able to clarify my status and what I would be appealing to
>>> council.
>>
>> The onus of any appeal is on you.  If he felt that there was anything
>> to appeal he wouldn't have issued it in the first place.  An appeal is
>> the result of a disagreement over a decision.  If you ask a judge what
>> part of his decision was wrong and should be appealed, he'll tell you
>> that there was nothing wrong with his decision.  That doesn't mean
>> that you can't appeal, it simply reflects the fact that any judge is
>> going to do their job however they feel is best.  If they knew in
>> advance there was a mistake in their ruling they wouldn't have made it
>> in the first place.
> 
> This isn't a fair comparison.  When a judge makes a decision it and the
> events surrounding it are logged in the court transcript which is
> typically public.  At most, the judge makes a decision and writes an
> 'opinion' that says what that decision was and how he reached it.
> 
> My understanding is some one wishing to appeal a Comrel decision does so
> almost completely blind.  It's not possible to know exactly what
> complaint(s) were filed against you, how Comrel came to its decision,
> and assuming the decision is flawed, what the flawed parts are.  To me
> it sounds like Comrel is very much a "black box".  Complaints go in, and
> if the device warrants it, a punitive decision comes out.
> 
> If that account is incorrect, I'd appreciate anyone pointing out what I
> got wrong, but as I'm writing this, Comrel's handling of things is
> world's apart from how a typical court does it.
> 
> That said, I'm not suggesting Comrel start writing "opinions" to justify
> their actions, but I am pointing out that William's frustration with
> being told he can appeal, but without any actionable information is a
> common thread I've heard from a few people who have had direct dealings
> with Comrel.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nicholas Vinson
> 
+1

I would take it a step further than this. If Comrel screws up, we're
supposed to trust the council to step in during an appeal and check out
the evidence to form an opinion on it. At this stage, why is the
information not made available for others to review? What stops someone
from fabricating a story, doctoring IRC or e-mail logs, and getting
someone disciplined or removed from Gentoo? Any decision affecting
Gentoo as a whole should be known to the Gentoo developer community.

Currently, we all get informed for the following, in no particular
order:

* new GLEPs
* council decisions
* last-rites
* new/removed packages
* community events (like conventions)
* infra post-mortems
* GLSAs
* (usually) new developers
* (usually) retirements/deaths

Why is the interpersonal realm of Gentoo secret? We could argue that
revealing it leads to bikeshedding, but let's be honest: most of ML
activity is exactly that, and good points get brought up during those
sessions despite any objections to the nature of bikeshedding.

As long as we're talking about methods, the greater Gentoo dev community
should be able to -- at the bare minimum -- know the processes that
Comrel goes through to verify the authenticity of the information it
receives. If they receive IRC logs, for instance, you can't count on
them to be undoctored unless it comes from Freenode itself, frankly.
There is too much incentive for any of the involved parties to modify
information. In a public channel, you'll find varying levels of witness
testimony and lots of personal views instead of facts. So we need to see
what methods Comrel uses to fulfill its mission (which, correct me if
I'm wrong, is "enforce the CoC").

Speaking of the CoC, if a developer is punished or acted upon due to an
infraction, they should know which rule they're being sentenced on and
what interpretation of said rule (since some of them are arbitrary) was
used to reach that decision.

Issues should be dealt with individually rather than a set of problems,
as it makes it too easy to look at three or four problems together and
justify a harsh 'sentence' instead of giving each of them a fair look.

I feel this way because I would not want to be on the receiving end of
such incompetence. I joined Gentoo mostly so I could give back to the
libre software community, and to be more involved to hopefully help
create a better Gentoo.

Transparency is an important part of that, imo. I can't tell you how
many communities I've stumbled across who made decisions about its
members in private and were held accountable to basically no-one, and
all it does is lower morale and ostracize those who are perceived as
social threats. I think there's a middle ground between cesspool and
iron-fisted, intolerant enforcement. Communities live and die based on
these decisions, so it's in the interest of every developer, imo, to
know how things get decided on, lest they find themselves on the
receiving end and have no effective processes to clear their name.

Privacy is important too, but IMO as soon as someone brings up an issue
to Comrel, they're admitting that they and/or the other person failed to
solve a problem as adults and now needs intervention. They should be
willing to voice it at least semi-publicly (on a mailing list and/or bug
available only to Gentoo developers, for instance). This keeps a record
for the entire Gentoo community to inspect. This is important to
building trust in those who make these (sometimes difficult) decisions.

Records, evidence, and statements (from all involved parties) should be
available to the developer community for a period of time. Call it 6
months or a year, or some other measure where the community has the time
to look at the information. This would give the community power to
appeal on behalf of someone if they feel the wrong choice was made. If
someone's really a problem for Gentoo, the dev community is more likely
to agree with Comrel because the evidence will back it up.

I fully understand that comrel and council decisions are not fully
democratic, but I also cannot accurately test or trust a black box.
Nobody can.  Let's compare with another influential project, the
council.

A council member:

* issues a manifesto before election (usually)
* takes part in monthly meetings (with logs and summaries available)
* explains the reasoning behind their decision/vote (usually)

Why should Comrel be any different wrt transparency? We should expect
the same high standard for Gentoo's social integrity as we do for its
technical integrity, as any good libre software project has both. A lack
of transparency under the excuse of privacy is cause for concern. It
draws more attention to the black box and makes one wonder what's really
going on. For the record, this has nothing to do with "safe spaces";
it's about being open and honest adults capable of finding resolutions.

The important part about integrity is that it has to be examined to be
proven.

During these series of threads, the developer community is being told
"You don't need to know how the comrel system works, but it works." Why
should we trust that at face value? (Side note: I really like the GLEP
idea and look forward to reading the first draft) Other projects within
Gentoo gladly share their processes and their guidelines. People are
often invited to join in, too. Comrel should be no different. At the
least, anything that happens on Gentoo infrastructure should be fair
game, as it indicates in the motd when you SSH in. Anything beyond that,
I would argue, may not even be within Comrel's duty or concern.
Developers running to Comrel in such situations should be running to
Freenode or whoever else maintains the given systems, as any behavior
that violates our CoC is likely to violate the CoC/ToS of other
providers.

Apologies for the wall of text. I tried to condense it.

~zlg

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2310 bytes --]

On 2016.10.12 11:26, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Starting a new thread since this goes beyond the original's topic.
> 
[snip]

Team,

> Issues should be dealt with individually rather than a set of
> problems,
> as it makes it too easy to look at three or four problems together and
> justify a harsh 'sentence' instead of giving each of them a fair look.
> 
> I feel this way because I would not want to be on the receiving end of
> such incompetence. I joined Gentoo mostly so I could give back to the
> libre software community, and to be more involved to hopefully help
> create a better Gentoo.

Incompetence is the wrong word.  I used to share that view but no more.
There is a potted history of the Gentoo metatstruture os the wiki at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_History 
It was written for an entirely different purpose but gives timelines
for the origins of the Foundation and council.

devrel and userrel predate both the Foundation and council. There are
some IRC logs from 2003 discussing setting up these projects.
This predating Foundation and council is important to understanding 
how we got to where we are.

At the time devrel and userrel were set up, Gentoo had its BDFL.
If he took an interest in the inner workings of these new projects, 
he would get it.  That these projects we set up as ordinary projects,
with no checks and balances, was of no consequence at that time.

When the council was formed and later, when the CoC was 
formalised in 2007, the CoC granted enforcement powers to  
devrel and userrel but they were still left as ordinary projects.

Today, we have the situation where devrel and userrel have merged
into comrel and we know that council do not review what their 
delegate does except upon an appeal.

Many of the people involved in the CoC and devrel in 2007 have
moved on, so the collective memory of the intended interpretation
of the CoC has been lost. 

Its divergent evolution, not incompetence.

[snip lots of good stuff]
 
> ~zlg
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2831 bytes --]

On 10/12/2016 04:59 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2016.10.12 11:26, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> Starting a new thread since this goes beyond the original's topic.
>>
> [snip]
> 
> Team,
> 
>> Issues should be dealt with individually rather than a set of
>> problems,
>> as it makes it too easy to look at three or four problems together and
>> justify a harsh 'sentence' instead of giving each of them a fair look.
>>
>> I feel this way because I would not want to be on the receiving end of
>> such incompetence. I joined Gentoo mostly so I could give back to the
>> libre software community, and to be more involved to hopefully help
>> create a better Gentoo.
> 
> Incompetence is the wrong word.  I used to share that view but no more.
> There is a potted history of the Gentoo metatstruture os the wiki at
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_History 
> It was written for an entirely different purpose but gives timelines
> for the origins of the Foundation and council.

To clarify, I was talking about the behavior of a hypothetical group
being secretive or failing to "show their work" when asked; it was not
aimed specifically at Comrel, as I would need something concrete to
reference. It was an example that I appear to have explained poorly. I
hope that sets things straight a bit.

> 
> devrel and userrel predate both the Foundation and council. There are
> some IRC logs from 2003 discussing setting up these projects.
> This predating Foundation and council is important to understanding 
> how we got to where we are.
> 
> At the time devrel and userrel were set up, Gentoo had its BDFL.
> If he took an interest in the inner workings of these new projects, 
> he would get it.  That these projects we set up as ordinary projects,
> with no checks and balances, was of no consequence at that time.
> 
> When the council was formed and later, when the CoC was 
> formalised in 2007, the CoC granted enforcement powers to  
> devrel and userrel but they were still left as ordinary projects.
> 
> Today, we have the situation where devrel and userrel have merged
> into comrel and we know that council do not review what their 
> delegate does except upon an appeal.
> 
> Many of the people involved in the CoC and devrel in 2007 have
> moved on, so the collective memory of the intended interpretation
> of the CoC has been lost. 
> 
> Its divergent evolution, not incompetence.
> 
> [snip lots of good stuff]
>  
>> ~zlg
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
>> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
>> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Speaking of the CoC, if a developer is punished or acted upon due to an
> infraction, they should know which rule they're being sentenced on and
> what interpretation of said rule (since some of them are arbitrary) was
> used to reach that decision.
>

My understanding is that anybody Comrel deals with is informed about
what the specific concerns were.  If this isn't happenening it
certainly can be brought up on appeal.

> Privacy is important too, but IMO as soon as someone brings up an issue
> to Comrel, they're admitting that they and/or the other person failed to
> solve a problem as adults and now needs intervention. They should be
> willing to voice it at least semi-publicly (on a mailing list and/or bug
> available only to Gentoo developers, for instance). This keeps a record
> for the entire Gentoo community to inspect. This is important to
> building trust in those who make these (sometimes difficult) decisions.
>
> Records, evidence, and statements (from all involved parties) should be
> available to the developer community for a period of time. Call it 6
> months or a year, or some other measure where the community has the time
> to look at the information. This would give the community power to
> appeal on behalf of someone if they feel the wrong choice was made. If
> someone's really a problem for Gentoo, the dev community is more likely
> to agree with Comrel because the evidence will back it up.

There are pros and cons to making this sort of thing public.  Here are
a bunch of reasons I can think of offhand why this is potentially a
bad idea:

Somebody who is the victim of some kind of abuse may be reluctant to
come forward, whether due to embarassment, a desire to not be seen as
a “tattle tale,” or concern for retaliation, whether by the person who
is accused or by somebody who is friends with the accused.

Whether innocent or guilty, the accused will find it more difficult to
re-enter the community if their past actions are public knowledge.
Maybe they intend to do the right thing, but everybody else will look
at them with distrust.

It may make somebody who has changed their ways reluctant to return,
feeling that they weren’t just separated, but publicly humiliated.

It opens the Foundation/community/etc up to accusations of defamation.
Right now if somebody is sent on their way it is a private matter, and
nobody knows the specifics of any concerns other than the accused and
a fairly controlled group that so far has managed to keep such things
private.  Legally that is a fairly hard thing to challenge due to the
freedom of association (nobody can force a group to let them in,
unless they can prove there is some kind of illegal form of
discrimination going on).  However, once you start making accusations
public knowledge it becomes slander and defamation and Gentoo would
potentially have to defend the truth of these accusations in court,
which is a much higher standard.  Why make ourselves liable in this
way?  Almost no organization publicizes these kinds of details of
personnel issues for this reason.  Courts aren't subject to the same
concerns either, you can't sue a court for publicizing the record of a
case where somebody was ultimately found innocent, perhaps after
initially being found guilty.

In the same way, publishing the details of what happened potentially
also harms the victim.  Suppose member A of the community is divulging
via unsolicited PMs/etc to other community members that member B of
the community has a less-common sexual orientation, etc, and does so
repeatedly with no signs of wanting to change, but the matter is not
yet public knowledge.  If we were to make the matter public knowledge
we actually accomplish the very thing that member B was trying to
stop, and they’re not going to want to come forward if they know this
will happen.  Most likely they would just leave the community, which
shouldn’t happen.

It turns every interpersonal conflict potentially into a matter of
public debate.  Right now we can have a general debate about whether
something does/doesn’t belong in the CoC, but it isn’t a personal
matter.  If you’re having that debate in the context of whether some
specific action was or wasn’t abusive/etc then that is going to inject
a lot of other concerns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving accountability and there are
a bunch of ways that can be done but I don't think that making the
details of these cases public is really the right solution.  I realize
that may ultimately be unsatisfying but I think it is the better way,
given that none of the options is truly ideal.

-- 
Rich

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6258 bytes --]

I think these are valid concerns, but I also think that witnesses should be
required to stand by their word

As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the
comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for:

1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a
go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused" to
rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been
taken out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.
2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity can
be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
3) Being held responsible in the place of the witness as an incentive for
comrel to keep the blame where it belongs.  If the testimony is sound, this
is a cakewalk, but if not then comrel should be incentivized to forward the
blame back to the bad witness.
4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice, and
if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they
should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs properly though,
passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of the CoC, if a developer is punished or acted upon due to an
> > infraction, they should know which rule they're being sentenced on and
> > what interpretation of said rule (since some of them are arbitrary) was
> > used to reach that decision.
> >
>
> My understanding is that anybody Comrel deals with is informed about
> what the specific concerns were.  If this isn't happenening it
> certainly can be brought up on appeal.
>
> > Privacy is important too, but IMO as soon as someone brings up an issue
> > to Comrel, they're admitting that they and/or the other person failed to
> > solve a problem as adults and now needs intervention. They should be
> > willing to voice it at least semi-publicly (on a mailing list and/or bug
> > available only to Gentoo developers, for instance). This keeps a record
> > for the entire Gentoo community to inspect. This is important to
> > building trust in those who make these (sometimes difficult) decisions.
> >
> > Records, evidence, and statements (from all involved parties) should be
> > available to the developer community for a period of time. Call it 6
> > months or a year, or some other measure where the community has the time
> > to look at the information. This would give the community power to
> > appeal on behalf of someone if they feel the wrong choice was made. If
> > someone's really a problem for Gentoo, the dev community is more likely
> > to agree with Comrel because the evidence will back it up.
>
> There are pros and cons to making this sort of thing public.  Here are
> a bunch of reasons I can think of offhand why this is potentially a
> bad idea:
>
> Somebody who is the victim of some kind of abuse may be reluctant to
> come forward, whether due to embarassment, a desire to not be seen as
> a “tattle tale,” or concern for retaliation, whether by the person who
> is accused or by somebody who is friends with the accused.
>
> Whether innocent or guilty, the accused will find it more difficult to
> re-enter the community if their past actions are public knowledge.
> Maybe they intend to do the right thing, but everybody else will look
> at them with distrust.
>
> It may make somebody who has changed their ways reluctant to return,
> feeling that they weren’t just separated, but publicly humiliated.
>
> It opens the Foundation/community/etc up to accusations of defamation.
> Right now if somebody is sent on their way it is a private matter, and
> nobody knows the specifics of any concerns other than the accused and
> a fairly controlled group that so far has managed to keep such things
> private.  Legally that is a fairly hard thing to challenge due to the
> freedom of association (nobody can force a group to let them in,
> unless they can prove there is some kind of illegal form of
> discrimination going on).  However, once you start making accusations
> public knowledge it becomes slander and defamation and Gentoo would
> potentially have to defend the truth of these accusations in court,
> which is a much higher standard.  Why make ourselves liable in this
> way?  Almost no organization publicizes these kinds of details of
> personnel issues for this reason.  Courts aren't subject to the same
> concerns either, you can't sue a court for publicizing the record of a
> case where somebody was ultimately found innocent, perhaps after
> initially being found guilty.
>
> In the same way, publishing the details of what happened potentially
> also harms the victim.  Suppose member A of the community is divulging
> via unsolicited PMs/etc to other community members that member B of
> the community has a less-common sexual orientation, etc, and does so
> repeatedly with no signs of wanting to change, but the matter is not
> yet public knowledge.  If we were to make the matter public knowledge
> we actually accomplish the very thing that member B was trying to
> stop, and they’re not going to want to come forward if they know this
> will happen.  Most likely they would just leave the community, which
> shouldn’t happen.
>
> It turns every interpersonal conflict potentially into a matter of
> public debate.  Right now we can have a general debate about whether
> something does/doesn’t belong in the CoC, but it isn’t a personal
> matter.  If you’re having that debate in the context of whether some
> specific action was or wasn’t abusive/etc then that is going to inject
> a lot of other concerns.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving accountability and there are
> a bunch of ways that can be done but I don't think that making the
> details of these cases public is really the right solution.  I realize
> that may ultimately be unsatisfying but I think it is the better way,
> given that none of the options is truly ideal.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7110 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the
> comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for:
>
> 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a
> go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused" to
> rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been taken
> out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.

Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any testimony,
especially things like PM logs or such which are easily tampered with.
That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or simply
discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple
people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the same sort
of event happened multiple times).

> 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity can
> be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.

This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to
potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.

> 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice, and
> if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they
> should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs properly though,
> passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.

I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be sanctioned,
but this is probably best handled in private through the same Comrel
processes.

And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we should
probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get them to
acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless of
whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on unless new
evidence surfaces.  Sometimes you can't always tell what happened.
I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead to
harsh action.

-- 
Rich

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2973 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the
> > comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for:
> >
> > 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a
> > go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused"
> to
> > rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been
> taken
> > out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.
>
> Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any testimony,
> especially things like PM logs or such which are easily tampered with.
> That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or simply
> discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple
> people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the same sort
> of event happened multiple times).
>

And I think the witness should be given the chance to explain or update as
needed.  Having comrel act as the middleman preserves their anonymity.

>
> > 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity
> can
> > be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
>
> This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to
> potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
> you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.
>

Not if policy is updated so that a) people submitting testimony to comrel
going forward give implied consent and b) standard boilerplate legalese
where they waive the right to sue.

And also:
1) In civil lawsuits for defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff
2) Truth is an absolute defense to defamation/libel/slander
3) Opinions are not actionable.  My opinion is that Donald Trump has
horrible hair.  Whether his hair is horrible or not, it is the truth that I
have such an opinion, and he can't sue me, because my statement is about my
opinion, not his hair.

>
> > 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice,
> and
> > if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they
> > should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs properly
> though,
> > passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.
>
> I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be sanctioned,
> but this is probably best handled in private through the same Comrel
> processes.
>
> And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we should
> probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get them to
> acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless of
> whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on unless new
> evidence surfaces.  Sometimes you can't always tell what happened.
> I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead to
> harsh action.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4004 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity
>> > can
>> > be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
>>
>> This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to
>> potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
>> you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.
>
>
> Not if policy is updated so that a) people submitting testimony to comrel
> going forward give implied consent and b) standard boilerplate legalese
> where they waive the right to sue.

A court is not necessarily bound by either.  Certainly I'd want a
lawyer's advice on such things.  Besides, if we were going to go this
route it would make far more sense to just tell anybody who wants to
submit something to Comrel to post it on a public list, so that Gentoo
isn't the one doing the disclosures.  I still think it will have a
chilling effect.

>
> And also:
> 1) In civil lawsuits for defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff

Sure, but maybe they can prove that Gentoo got it wrong.

> 2) Truth is an absolute defense to defamation/libel/slander

Well, how are we supposed to know what the truth is?  At best we can
determine whether evidence is corroborated or contradictory.

In any case, why would we want to take the legal risk of having to
prove that we're telling the truth, vs just keeping our mouths shut
which is what virtually every other organization in existence does in
these sorts of situations?

> 3) Opinions are not actionable.  My opinion is that Donald Trump has
> horrible hair.  Whether his hair is horrible or not, it is the truth that I
> have such an opinion, and he can't sue me, because my statement is about my
> opinion, not his hair.

Sure, but statements like "Donald Trump lied in his Comrel testimony"
aren't opinions.  And we would be talking about Trump either, but
somebody who disclosed something in private and who isn't a public
figure.  A court is going to look at somebody like Trump differently
since he puts himself out in the public light.

In any case, I don't really think that publishing testimony is a great
idea all around, and even if it is uncertain that somebody would
prevail against us in a court, why even take that risk?  If we don't
think somebody belongs in the community, we can send them on their
way, and they can do their thing, and we can do ours.  We don't have
to publicly shame them first.

-- 
Rich

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4250 bytes --]

On 10/12/2016 05:14 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org
> <mailto:rich0@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings
>     <shentino@gmail.com <mailto:shentino@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by having the
>     > comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible for:
>     >
>     > 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically serving as a
>     > go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows the "accused" to
>     > rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may have been taken
>     > out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.
> 
>     Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any testimony,
>     especially things like PM logs or such which are easily tampered with.
>     That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or simply
>     discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple
>     people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the same sort
>     of event happened multiple times).
> 
> 
> And I think the witness should be given the chance to explain or update
> as needed.  Having comrel act as the middleman preserves their anonymity. 
> 
> 
>     > 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the witness's identity can
>     > be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
> 
>     This is still very problematically legally, because this amounts to
>     potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
>     you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.
> 
> 
> Not if policy is updated so that a) people submitting testimony to
> comrel going forward give implied consent and b) standard boilerplate
> legalese where they waive the right to sue.
> 
> And also:
> 1) In civil lawsuits for defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff
Depends on what jurisdiction.  US, sure.  UK, burden is on the defendant
(Defamation Act 2013)  The foundation may be US based, but lawsuits can
ostensibly come from anywhere.
Better to avoid risking a lawsuit than assume that we'd have the
upperhand when we'd get hit with one.
> 2) Truth is an absolute defense to defamation/libel/slander
Once again, depends on jurisdiction.  Additionally, "truth" is
subjective and a function of what evidence you bring to the table (and
what is deemed admissible)
> 3) Opinions are not actionable.  My opinion is that Donald Trump has
> horrible hair.  Whether his hair is horrible or not, it is the truth
> that I have such an opinion, and he can't sue me, because my statement
> is about my opinion, not his hair.
Look up the case of David Irving.  He sued the author of a book about
holocaust deniers (because he is one) and the case took up 5 years and
several million dollars to settle.  That kind of risk is unacceptable
for the foundation.
The UK is one of the most notorious nations for horrible
libel/defamation laws. Exposure to additional risk from a major first
world country is not wise, especially when the alternative is so much
simpler.
> 
> 
>     > 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses to justice, and
>     > if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's part and they
>     > should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs properly though,
>     > passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.
> 
>     I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be sanctioned,
>     but this is probably best handled in private through the same Comrel
>     processes.
> 
>     And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we should
>     probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get them to
>     acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless of
>     whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on unless new
>     evidence surfaces.  Sometimes you can't always tell what happened.
>     I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead to
>     harsh action.
> 
>     --
>     Rich
> 
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Raymond Jennings]

I think you missed the part where I suggested that witnesses could 
always give implied consent and waive the right to sue.

The world is so god-damned litigious that "waivers" of this sort are 
more common than they should be.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 05:14 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>  On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org
>>  <mailto:rich0@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>      On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raymond Jennings
>>      <shentino@gmail.com <mailto:shentino@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>      >
>>      > As I mentioned before though, I think that could be done by 
>> having the
>>      > comrel member accepting their "testimony" be held responsible 
>> for:
>>      >
>>      > 1) Forwarding back any challenges to credibility, basically 
>> serving as a
>>      > go-between.  This preserves the anonymity, but also allows 
>> the "accused" to
>>      > rebut any questionable evidence or explain anything that may 
>> have been taken
>>      > out of context, whether by mistake or otherwise.
>> 
>>      Certainly Comrel ought to investigate the validity of any 
>> testimony,
>>      especially things like PM logs or such which are easily 
>> tampered with.
>>      That might include asking the accused for their own logs, or 
>> simply
>>      discounting any evidence like this that isn't backed by multiple
>>      people (maybe more than one witnessed an event, or maybe the 
>> same sort
>>      of event happened multiple times).
>> 
>> 
>>  And I think the witness should be given the chance to explain or 
>> update
>>  as needed.  Having comrel act as the middleman preserves their 
>> anonymity.
>> 
>> 
>>      > 2) If the testimony proves false and unreliable, the 
>> witness's identity can
>>      > be exposed.  And in this case, deservedly so.
>> 
>>      This is still very problematically legally, because this 
>> amounts to
>>      potential defamation against the witness if you can't prove that
>>      you've gotten it right to the standards of a court.
>> 
>> 
>>  Not if policy is updated so that a) people submitting testimony to
>>  comrel going forward give implied consent and b) standard 
>> boilerplate
>>  legalese where they waive the right to sue.
>> 
>>  And also:
>>  1) In civil lawsuits for defamation, the burden of proof is on the 
>> plaintiff
> Depends on what jurisdiction.  US, sure.  UK, burden is on the 
> defendant
> (Defamation Act 2013)  The foundation may be US based, but lawsuits 
> can
> ostensibly come from anywhere.
> Better to avoid risking a lawsuit than assume that we'd have the
> upperhand when we'd get hit with one.
>>  2) Truth is an absolute defense to defamation/libel/slander
> Once again, depends on jurisdiction.  Additionally, "truth" is
> subjective and a function of what evidence you bring to the table (and
> what is deemed admissible)
>>  3) Opinions are not actionable.  My opinion is that Donald Trump has
>>  horrible hair.  Whether his hair is horrible or not, it is the truth
>>  that I have such an opinion, and he can't sue me, because my 
>> statement
>>  is about my opinion, not his hair.
> Look up the case of David Irving.  He sued the author of a book about
> holocaust deniers (because he is one) and the case took up 5 years and
> several million dollars to settle.  That kind of risk is unacceptable
> for the foundation.
> The UK is one of the most notorious nations for horrible
> libel/defamation laws. Exposure to additional risk from a major first
> world country is not wise, especially when the alternative is so much
> simpler.
>> 
>> 
>>      > 4) IIRC/IMHO, its comrel's job to bring malicious witnesses 
>> to justice, and
>>      > if they don't its a failure of responsibility on comrel's 
>> part and they
>>      > should take the heat for it.  If they're doing their jobs 
>> properly though,
>>      > passing the blame back where it belongs should be a cakewalk.
>> 
>>      I do agree that people who falsely accuse others should be 
>> sanctioned,
>>      but this is probably best handled in private through the same 
>> Comrel
>>      processes.
>> 
>>      And if after scrutiny all you have is he-says-she-says then we 
>> should
>>      probably just tell everybody what they should be doing, get 
>> them to
>>      acknowledge that they intend to do so going forward (regardless 
>> of
>>      whether it did or didn't happen in the past), and move on 
>> unless new
>>      evidence surfaces.  Sometimes you can't always tell what 
>> happened.
>>      I'm certainly not suggesting that a mere accusation should lead 
>> to
>>      harsh action.
>> 
>>      --
>>      Rich
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> NP-Hardass
> 

Re: Comrel Accountability (Was "Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...")

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you missed the part where I suggested that witnesses could always
> give implied consent and waive the right to sue.
>
> The world is so god-damned litigious that "waivers" of this sort are more
> common than they should be.
>

They're common, and often unenforceable.  I can sue somebody even if I
waived my right to sue.  A court would then have to decide whether to
dismiss the case, and if the other side probably is going to spend at
least a fair bit of money whichever way it goes.  If a court has any
sense that somebody was wronged and lacks some kind of reasonable
recourse it is pretty likely to find that waiver unenforceable and
allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Things like arbitration clauses are more enforceable since they offer
some kind of chance of relief.

Ultimately though a court gets to decide whether somebody is allowed
to seek relief from a court, and courts are generally reluctant to
deny people this right.  These waivers are usually put in boilerplate
contracts in the hope that they will deter a suit, or that the
defendant will get lucky and get a dismissal.  Maybe it could help
sway a court if there isn't much merit to the case in the first place.

Certainly no sensible organization should just engage in behavior that
wouldn't pass public muster and hope that some kind of contract will
save it.  And there is potential damage to reputation even if there
isn't a suit.

Let's look at it a different way:  What organization do you consider
an example of a well-run organization that has a policy like the one
you propose?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1734 bytes --]

On 11/10/16 17:48, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Comrel chooses to get involved when they need not be. They had no reason to 
> get involved in 2015, or since 2008. They did not need to get involved and 
> take action in 2008.
>
> That is the root of the entire problem. They choose to interject when they are 
> not needed or wanted...
>
> If comrel did nothing in 2015, I would not be here posting. If they did 
> nothing in 2008, I would never have left. This is all because of their 
> involvement, not their resolution...
>
>
Stepping in on a topic that I know little about, but from a related
subject that irks me significantly....

Willliam: propose a (viable) change to policy that the council can vote
on. The discussion on what is passed, is definitely that. If you have
lodged an appeal to due process to Council, or if you think that some
part of Gentoo acted illegally, take advice, and address the Trustees.

rich0 has started a perfectly reasonable discussion as to explore some
of the 'warts' if you like .. of the ComRel body, and how it may be
Improved. It is the emphasis on the latter that is likely to make a
difference going forward, and allows the possibility (and at this stage
it is Only Possibility) that the status quo may be Re-evaluated against
new policy.

In proposing new changes, we must Justify why we feel these changes are
necessary - not so much how they affect the Past, but how they will
improve Gentoo for the Future. Examples are valid, but need to be
presented in a factual matter. Simply getting angry and upset is likely
to galvanise others against you, and make your plight harder to further.

Just my 2c. And a dollar thrown in.

Michael/veremit.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:02:44 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:

> Stepping in on a topic that I know little about, but from a related
> subject that irks me significantly....
> 
> Willliam: propose a (viable) change to policy that the council can vote
> on. The discussion on what is passed, is definitely that. If you have
> lodged an appeal to due process to Council, or

I am more concerned about technical aspects of Gentoo that need work. Spending 
time on proposals or GLEPs to the council  is futile. I pretty much know the 
larger community will object.

Even if what I say is good, most will see it as a bad because I have a black 
label. I am an outcast and always seen and treated as such. I have seen this 
be the case several times in the past. I suggestion something, shot down, 
others do and it gets accepted...

>  if you think that some
> part of Gentoo acted illegally, take advice, and address the Trustees.

I was a trustee.... 

Comrel took action against a recently resigned Trustee on the -nfp list, a 
foundation list. That in of itself was a huge insult. Rather than thanks for 
being a Trustee, or giving them some slack. lets ban a former Trustee from -
nfp for a single post. Then suspend dev privileges for another 15 days because 
a 1 post.

The entire situation never should have occurred... You do not take actions 
against a former Trustee like that... It is called NO RESPECT...

I have never been treated respectfully by devrel/comrel.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2255 bytes --]


On 11/10/16 18:22, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:02:44 PM EDT M. J. Everitt wrote:
>
>
> I am more concerned about technical aspects of Gentoo that need work. Spending 
> time on proposals or GLEPs to the council  is futile. I pretty much know the 
> larger community will object.
>
> Even if what I say is good, most will see it as a bad because I have a black 
> label. I am an outcast and always seen and treated as such. I have seen this 
> be the case several times in the past. I suggestion something, shot down, 
> others do and it gets accepted...
>
>
<snip>
> I was a trustee.... 
>
> Comrel took action against a recently resigned Trustee on the -nfp list, a 
> foundation list. That in of itself was a huge insult. Rather than thanks for 
> being a Trustee, or giving them some slack. lets ban a former Trustee from -
> nfp for a single post. Then suspend dev privileges for another 15 days because 
> a 1 post.
>
> The entire situation never should have occurred... You do not take actions 
> against a former Trustee like that... It is called NO RESPECT...
>
> I have never been treated respectfully by devrel/comrel.
>
Would you be suggesting perhaps (and these are not my words) .. that it
might be the case, or could be considered, that there may be a 'clique'
of perceived "good" devs and "bad" devs in Gentoo? You would certainly
have recourse if that were found to be the case, but that would be a
matter for Council to address, and be presented with appropriate
evidence from any such parties that may be concerned....

Regretfully, I think you're setting the bar rather high for what you're
expecting from Gentoo as an overworked body of volunteers. Whilst I'm
not excusing the actions of any, for even a moment, I think the lack of
resources (which I too agree with) and the difficulties arising from a
lack of a legitimate programme of recruitment and hence 'new blood', is
putting an unreasonable expectation on both devs and users alike in
terms of what's achievable with the resource available. Again, finding
some pro-active measures and contributing a solution rather than another
problem I'm certain -should- be welcomed by Gentoo as a whole ..


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:59:38 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> >>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
>> >> There were only two changes with regards to content after inception
>> >> of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
>> >> (bug 185572),
>> >
>> > I was not aware comrel and userrel were created in 2008.
>>
>> Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution of
>> the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.
>
> Yes but per that bug it seems most the policing powers fell under Proctors and
> that was transferred to comrel/devrel.

Maybe on paper, but the reality is that Proctors functioned for all of
about three days (though the devs who constituted the Proctors were
doing moderation activities long before and after they were Proctors).
It apparently took much longer for the CoC to be updated to reflect
the reality of the situation.

Devrel/Userrel existed for years before the CoC came along as far as I'm aware.

>
> Actually it is does given powers were transferred from one entity to another.
> I never recall hearing issues from the Proctors. Seems comrel/devrel concept
> has not worked since its inception. Or at least since Proctors was merged into
> or taken over by other entities.
>

I don't think any powers were really transferred anywhere in practice.
Devrel did the sorts of things before the CoC that it did after the
CoC.  For a few days the Proctors were active in the community, and
then they were gone.  Documentation might have taken ages to catch up
with reality, but Devrel never really ceased operating, and the
Proctors were never really intended to completely replace them as far
as I'm aware.  Of course Devrel/Userrel later fused into Comrel, but
that isn't really a "transfer of power" so much as a re-org.

I'm not sure where you get that "Comrel/Devrel concept has not worked
since its inception."  If you mean that people still sometimes
disregard the CoC, then that is like saying that the Police are
unnecessary because there is still crime.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1825 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:24:42 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:

> I don't think any powers were really transferred anywhere in practice.

I am showing a trail of history where that is exactly the case. The powers did 
not exist when GLEP 7 was adopted.

"Right now there is no mechanism to prevent such disputes from escalating out 
of control."
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:7

"Subject: Ombudsman project ending
.....
Ombudsman and Developer Relations have therefore made a joint decision
to end the Ombudsman project and instead move conflict mediation to
Developer Relations itself. "
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.gentoo.devrel/2007-05/msg00000.html

At some point devrel was merged into comrel. It very clearly shows these 
powers being passed around to entities that did not have them to begin with. 
No project or entity had that power before GLEP 7.

> Devrel did the sorts of things before the CoC that it did after the
> CoC.  

Not before GLEP 7 and not till after the Ombudsman project ended in 2007. 
Which is why I recall it being a quiz question in 2006. Later replaced with 
comrel/devrel on the quiz.

I am clearly showing this problem started in 2007-2008 and has grown worse 
since.

> I'm not sure where you get that "Comrel/Devrel concept has not worked
> since its inception." 

It is my observation and opinion over the years.

> If you mean that people still sometimes
> disregard the CoC, then that is like saying that the Police are
> unnecessary because there is still crime.

No this is like saying the Police are the ones committing the crimes. Police 
not falling their own laws. Creating new laws, etc. But police are NOT 
judges... In law enforcement there is separation of powers. That is not the 
case in Gentoo, though in the past seems it was a bit more so.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:

>> Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution
>> of the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.

> Yes but per that bug it seems most the policing powers fell under
> Proctors and that was transferred to comrel/devrel.

You really should do some basic research before posting. Proctors were
a rather short-lived project, incepted sometime in spring 2007 and
dissolved in July of the same year.

All that history is publicly accessible in mailing list archives,
council logs, and bugzilla.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1988 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 6:26:45 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
> >> Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution
> >> of the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.
> > 
> > Yes but per that bug it seems most the policing powers fell under
> > Proctors and that was transferred to comrel/devrel.
> 
> You really should do some basic research before posting. Proctors were
> a rather short-lived project, incepted sometime in spring 2007 and
> dissolved in July of the same year.

It is hard to research a mess... Where are the GLEPs regarding comrel/devrel, 
etc? Is this not something that would justify a GLEP? Why was the proctors 
created and dissolved? Clearly there was some problem others were seeking to 
correct.

GLEP 7 covered Ombudsman, the only GLEP about policing...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:7

I believe in the past Ombudsman was a quiz question.

Per research seems that Ombudsman was merged into devrel. Which at some point 
a proctors concept was entertained. Then later devrel merged into comrel. It 
seems both comrel and devrel existed when Ombudsman existed.

History has shown that the powers regarding developer policing have been 
passed around over the years. They were not with comrel initially but ended up 
there presently. Also at the time of GLEP 7 it seemed no entity had that power 
or authority, as clearly stated in the GLEP motivation.

Regardless of the past, developer policing is something that has been abused, 
as it seems mostly by comrel/devrel. I do not recall hearing such about 
Ombudsman.

If all these concepts are so great, why does it keep changing over the years?

It seems the main reason why Ombudsman was merged into devrel was lack of man 
power. Could be the same reason devrel was merged into comrel. Lack of man 
power has plagued Gentoo for a long time. What action is being taken to 
correct?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2693 bytes --]

On 2016.10.11 17:11, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:59:38 PM EDT Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, William L Thomson wrote:
> > >> There were only two changes with regards to content after
> inception
> > >> of the CoC: One in 2008, replacing proctors by devrel und userrel
> > >> (bug 185572),
> > > 
> > > I was not aware comrel and userrel were created in 2008.
> > 
> > Both projects are much older. The timing relates to the dissolution
> of
> > the proctors project, see the 2007-07-12 council meeting log.
> 
> Yes but per that bug it seems most the policing powers fell under
> Proctors and 
> that was transferred to comrel/devrel.
> 
> Snippet from bug 185572
> 
> "If the problem repeats itself, there are various options open to the 
> proctors, including temporary or permanent suspension of a person's
> ability to 
> post to mailing lists, removal of Bugzilla access, or in more severe
> cases 
> suspension of developer privileges. Any action of this sort will
> require 
> consensus from at least three proctors. "
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185572
> 
> It is quite clear that prior to ~2007-2008, punishment was handled by
> Proctors 
> not comrel/devrel/userrel. The last bit about requiring consensus is 
> interesting. I do not recall reading such about devrel/comrel but may
> exist. 
> Clearly comrel can act individually and people must request a vote
> from all... 
> Proctors never seemed to operate that way.
> 
> Also interesting how proctors could not be on council ( or vice versa
> ), but 
> that has never been the case for comrel/devrel...
> 
> > > Timing is quite interesting. That could explain quite allot, and
> why
> > > at least in my opinion. Gentoo has been on the decline since
> ~2008.
> > > I do not feel either has had a good or positive impact. The issues
> > > in Gentoo could be directly related.
> > 
> > Since the premise is wrong, this doesn't follow.
> 
> Actually it is does given powers were transferred from one entity to
> another. 
> I never recall hearing issues from the Proctors. Seems comrel/devrel
> concept 
> has not worked since its inception. Or at least since Proctors was
> merged into 
> or taken over by other entities.
> 
> -- 
> William L. Thomson Jr.
> 

William,

Several other correspondents in this thread have been confused 
by the ambiguity in the word Proctors in Gentoos history.

You have demonstrated the misunderstanding here as has
been corrected elsewhere in this thread.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5548 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 05:54 PM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 08:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept
>> secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
>> about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or
>> merely misunderstandings?
> Anonymous statistics as already proposed work to show the general trend
> of action by ComRel, and if a person feels that they have been unjustly
> treated by ComRel, they have the right to appeal to ComRel and the
> Council.  Like a court system.  You appeal to the next higher level
> until you hit the top, if you truly believe that the decision against
> you was unjust.    Minor ComRel incident->Full ComRel incident->Council
> review->(legal issues)->Trustees

Right. The statistics I think will help keep a "heartbeat monitor" on
the developer community and put things into perspective a bit. However,
the right to an appeal doesn't really tell us much. How would corruption
from another group be found out about? Appeal to the Council and hope
for the best? The series of events makes sense if the Council has the
power to compel Comrel for information or audit.
>>
>> [snip]
>> As a side note, why do we have Comrel if we're all expected to act like
>> adults? Adults solve problems by communicating, and having an opaque
>> group mediate conflicts doesn't strike me as ideal. If two people have
>> trouble and cannot solve it, they go their separate ways or learn to
>> work past their differences.
> And what do you do when one person decides to continue to harass
> another, despite another person trying to move on?  You have to have
> some sort of mediation with a third party when things break down in bad
> scenarios.  What are you going to do if a developer starts sexually
> harassing another?  Are you going to expect that the person is just
> going to stop?  And what if they don't?  That's why ComRel exists.  As
> they say, you try to handle the issues on your own first, and if that
> fails, then you escalate to ComRel, who attempts to mediate, if
> mediation fails, then it may escalate to official action.  ComRel is not
> running around with a ban hammer beating people up left and right.
There are indeed times where you have to bust out the power tools and
issue ultimatums. I'd like to believe those times are not as numerous as
people may be led to believe, and that in some cases, all options may
not be exhausted before resorting to forceful removal.

Sexual harassment is a legal matter, to be frank. We can take measures
to reduce its occurrence, but I'm sure we both know that technical
solutions for social problems don't really work. We can ban and remove,
but a persistent harasser will make new nicks, new e-mail addresses, may
publicly harass and/or stalk someone, etc. Past a certain point, the
victim may need to press charges or seek other avenues of power, e.g.
talk to Freenode about IRC harassment, report to the attacker's e-mail
provider, etc.

I'm trying my best not to paint Comrel one way or another because I've
not interacted with them, but with the recent situations coming to
light, I don't think it's unwise to at least question what goes on,
which is why we're having this conversation.
>>
>> Leadership requires accountability. Trustees and the Council have some
>> degree of accountability, and can be removed from their positions as the
>> developer community pleases. With a group as influential as Comrel, I
>> would expect some level of accountability and responsibility. If we're
>> going to trust a group with what's essentially HR, their decisions
>> should be backed by an accountable person or group, such as the Council
>> (or a similar group within Comrel that answers to the community).
> It's the case with all representative governments.   You elect some
> officials who appoint others.   If you don't like their choices, you
> speak to them, or vote for someone else.
>>
>> In that vein, I believe that if Comrel is responsible for a particularly
>> unpopular or otherwise disruptive change, they should be held
>> accountable for it, including finding "replacements" or filling the
>> holes left by the developer(s) they may take action against.
> How do they do that?  They can't force another developer to take their
> place, nor can they suddenly will up other developers into existence
> (which still has the force issue)
>>
>> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
>> people act on both the Council and in Comrel? I recall certain
>> situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
>> that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
>> "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
>> ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
>> small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.
>>
> Now, as far as conflict of interest is concerned, since the appeal of a
> ComRel issue is a Council appeal, I think that a conflict of interest
> warrants special attention.   Whether we are best with a policy
> preventing holding both positions, or forcing someone to recuse
> themselves, I think we'd probably benefit from either.
+1

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

I would like to repeat for emphasis that there is already a conflict of 
interest policy that forbids proctors (userrel and devrel) from also 
being council members.

I remember this issue coming up during the dev quiz I'm working 
on...and admittedly while I was slow enough that things changed, I do 
remember reading the documentation and I clearly remember the line 
about proctors not being allowed to have a conflict of interest by also 
having a seat on the council.

Since comrel was made by the union of userrel and devrel, wouldn't 
comrel "inherit" the policy that applied to the parts it was made of?

My impression is that if the policy no longer exists, its only because 
it got lost in the shuffle of paperwork that created comrel.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The series of events makes sense if the Council has the
> power to compel Comrel for information or audit.

When Comrel decisions are appealed the Council gets access to all
information Comrel had at their disposal.  The person doing the appeal
can present whatever information they wish.  Really it would be
counterproductive for Comrel to not provide the full record because
the "defense" isn't going to be pulling its punches.  If Comrel
doesn't present enough evidence of wrongdoing then the Council isn't
going to be likely to uphold the appeal.

And ultimately I think both groups need to be concerned with whether
attitudes have changed/etc than on the past events themselves (unless
they're very drastic).  The issue wasn't whether something bad
happened so much as whether everybody involved recognizes what
mistakes they've made and is committed to not making them again, and
that they're demonstrating their ability to stick to this.  When
somebody appeals to the Council saying that they haven't done anything
wrong in situation XYZ, and then the Council looks at situation XYZ
and sees them doing something very wrong, and Comrel communications
show this has been pointed out to the appellant, then there clearly is
an unwillingness to follow the norms of the community.  If you think
that Comrel is off base then the solution is to stop doing the
questionable behavior and appeal the matter THEN, not to continue the
bad behavior and dare Comrel to do something about it.  Nobody wants
to pull out the ban hammer because somebody disagrees with the rules
(I've pointed out a rule or two I disagree with in this thread), it is
only for failing to follow them.

>
> Sexual harassment is a legal matter, to be frank. We can take measures
> to reduce its occurrence, but I'm sure we both know that technical
> solutions for social problems don't really work. We can ban and remove,
> but a persistent harasser will make new nicks, new e-mail addresses, may
> publicly harass and/or stalk someone, etc. Past a certain point, the
> victim may need to press charges or seek other avenues of power, e.g.
> talk to Freenode about IRC harassment, report to the attacker's e-mail
> provider, etc.

While victims may have other avenues, that doesn't free us from doing
our part.  The Trustees should have a part in defining these kinds of
standards, but the fact that bans can be evaded isn't a reason not to
have them.

If somebody commits a crime in a Walmart, Walmart might tell them
they're banned from entering their stores, and that if they violate
the ban they're trespassing.  Now, six months later it would be pretty
easy for this person to sneak into some other Walmart on the other
side of the country, but if a victim of a future crime sued Walmart
they could still point to the ban, and the victim would probably have
to demonstrate that Walmart knowingly failed to enforce it.

Also, when the term "sexual harassment" tends to get used in FOSS
communities it is often not activity that actually meets a legal
standard of harassment, which often requires some kind of power
relationship.  In any case we can still have community standards such
as not allowing unwanted sexual attention and other forms of
"harassment" even if they don't fit the legal standard, and we ought
to have these kinds of standards because it makes Gentoo into the sort
of community where decent contributors are going to want to set down
their roots.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

NP already gave a good response but I wanted to elaborate on the
conflict of interest topic.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
> people act on both the Council and in Comrel?

This has been a topic of several long discussions.  Personally I see
no conflict of interest, and it is common in the real world for judges
to serve on panels that decide cases, and also serve on larger panels
that handle appeals of the same cases.  A conflict of interest is when
somebody stands to benefit personally from the outcome of a decision,
apart from the organization they represent.  So, if somebody were
deciding whether to engage the services of a company they own on the
side, that would be a conflict of interest, because even if the
company screws up and harms Gentoo, they still benefit personally.

That is my opinion on the matter.  It seems like a majority of people
who have commented on this in the past disagree with me, and there are
a few places in the official docs that suggest that Comrel members
should not participate in Council appeals of decisions.  To date
Comrel members have recused themselves from Council appeals.  So,
while I think most of the community is wrong on this, and Gentoo's
standards are inconsistent with how most organizations and governments
are run, ultimately I don't make the rules (we Council members try to
follow the rules, and certainly I'd expect to be called on it if I
didn't).  Most in the community seem to prefer having the appeal be
handled independently from the original decision, feeling that a
second set of eyes could reach a different decision.  Certainly some
courts work this way as well, though I don't think any would call this
a result of a "conflict of interest."

> I recall certain
> situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
> that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
> "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
> ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
> small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.

To date Comrel members have been recusing themselves from Council
appeals.  I personally disagree that this is necessary, but all the
same the result is that all Council appeals to date have been
independent decisions.

In any case, anybody who is in both Comrel and Council is only on the
Council because they were elected as such.  So, they already have the
trust of most of the community.  I don't personally get why you'd
trust them with the bigger decisions and not with the smaller ones as
well, but...

The other challenge with having completely separate
Council/Trustee/Comrel/QA (and I'd throw Infra in as one of those
other special projects) is that ultimately there are only so many
people that have that level of trust/maturity/leadership/etc in the
community.  I think it is healthy to try to minimize overlap just from
the standpoint of getting more hands involved and not letting one
person become a bottleneck.  Nevertheless, I'd rather have somebody
wearing two hats if they're competent, than putting somebody who isn't
competent in power simply because we've run out of warm bodies willing
to do the job.  At one point in time we actually had trouble filling
all the Trustee slots, and several of the past Trustee elections have
been vacant.  I know that in private there have been discussions and
the occasional conscious decision for people in these sorts of roles
to not run for re-election just to try to encourage new blood to stop
up, or to get out of the way of those who would benefit from
experience.  When Council members can't make meetings we try to find
proxies and that is also another avenue to expose people to the role.

Bringing up new leaders is always a challenge because the stuff the
leadership tends to deal with is often qualitatively different from
the stuff ordinary devs do.  You can't just look at the quality of
somebody's commits and decide that they'd make a good member of
Comrel.  Perhaps we need to find more minor roles that devs hold as a
stepping stone, and to also help spread the work.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6199 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 06:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> NP already gave a good response but I wanted to elaborate on the
> conflict of interest topic.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
>> people act on both the Council and in Comrel?
> 
> This has been a topic of several long discussions.  Personally I see
> no conflict of interest, and it is common in the real world for judges
> to serve on panels that decide cases, and also serve on larger panels
> that handle appeals of the same cases.  A conflict of interest is when
> somebody stands to benefit personally from the outcome of a decision,
> apart from the organization they represent.  So, if somebody were
> deciding whether to engage the services of a company they own on the
> side, that would be a conflict of interest, because even if the
> company screws up and harms Gentoo, they still benefit personally.
> 
> That is my opinion on the matter.  It seems like a majority of people
> who have commented on this in the past disagree with me, and there are
> a few places in the official docs that suggest that Comrel members
> should not participate in Council appeals of decisions.  To date
> Comrel members have recused themselves from Council appeals.  So,
> while I think most of the community is wrong on this, and Gentoo's
> standards are inconsistent with how most organizations and governments
> are run, ultimately I don't make the rules (we Council members try to
> follow the rules, and certainly I'd expect to be called on it if I
> didn't).  Most in the community seem to prefer having the appeal be
> handled independently from the original decision, feeling that a
> second set of eyes could reach a different decision.  Certainly some
> courts work this way as well, though I don't think any would call this
> a result of a "conflict of interest."
> 
>> I recall certain
>> situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
>> that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
>> "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
>> ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
>> small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.
> 
> To date Comrel members have been recusing themselves from Council
> appeals.  I personally disagree that this is necessary, but all the
> same the result is that all Council appeals to date have been
> independent decisions.
> 
> In any case, anybody who is in both Comrel and Council is only on the
> Council because they were elected as such.  So, they already have the
> trust of most of the community.  I don't personally get why you'd
> trust them with the bigger decisions and not with the smaller ones as
> well, but...
For me, it's about separation of exposure. A Comrel member who has it
out for someone (or alternatively, has been failing to find a solution
to a problem for months) is not going to have a (relatively) unbiased
opinion or clear judgment on a given case. Comrel is sorta like the
defense or prosecution, while the Council is the judge. The prosecution
and judge should not ever be in cahoots with each other, or the
integrity of the process falters.

I would personally find it hard to take a decision at face value if I
learned that one or more members held "office" in other pivotal
positions. Seeing someone recuse from voting is a great start, and a
sign that there is some integrity. Perhaps excusing themselves from
Council decisions altogether (for that case, including sharing
information) may be a better step, at least until we get more people
interested in these positions.

Otherwise, we have a difference in opinion but I think we both value
integrity and impartial actors judging a case from the outside.
> 
> The other challenge with having completely separate
> Council/Trustee/Comrel/QA (and I'd throw Infra in as one of those
> other special projects) is that ultimately there are only so many
> people that have that level of trust/maturity/leadership/etc in the
> community.  I think it is healthy to try to minimize overlap just from
> the standpoint of getting more hands involved and not letting one
> person become a bottleneck.  Nevertheless, I'd rather have somebody
> wearing two hats if they're competent, than putting somebody who isn't
> competent in power simply because we've run out of warm bodies willing
> to do the job.  At one point in time we actually had trouble filling
> all the Trustee slots, and several of the past Trustee elections have
> been vacant.  I know that in private there have been discussions and
> the occasional conscious decision for people in these sorts of roles
> to not run for re-election just to try to encourage new blood to stop
> up, or to get out of the way of those who would benefit from
> experience.  When Council members can't make meetings we try to find
> proxies and that is also another avenue to expose people to the role.
> 
> Bringing up new leaders is always a challenge because the stuff the
> leadership tends to deal with is often qualitatively different from
> the stuff ordinary devs do.  You can't just look at the quality of
> somebody's commits and decide that they'd make a good member of
> Comrel.  Perhaps we need to find more minor roles that devs hold as a
> stepping stone, and to also help spread the work.
> 
I like the idea for minor roles. Start with forum mod work or something
like that, to see how a candidate acts when given a little bit of power.
How they handle that role will reveal how they act under pressure and
when their hand is forced by unruly behavior. Given that the power is
trivially granted or taken away, and the decisions they make can also be
reversed in fast order, I think it would be a wonderful step to motivate
developers to become more involved with the community.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3833 bytes --]

On 10/06/2016 09:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> NP already gave a good response but I wanted to elaborate on the
> conflict of interest topic.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
>> people act on both the Council and in Comrel?
> 
> This has been a topic of several long discussions.  Personally I see
> no conflict of interest, and it is common in the real world for judges
> to serve on panels that decide cases, and also serve on larger panels
> that handle appeals of the same cases.  A conflict of interest is when
> somebody stands to benefit personally from the outcome of a decision,
> apart from the organization they represent.  So, if somebody were
> deciding whether to engage the services of a company they own on the
> side, that would be a conflict of interest, because even if the
> company screws up and harms Gentoo, they still benefit personally.
> 
> That is my opinion on the matter.  It seems like a majority of people
> who have commented on this in the past disagree with me, and there are
> a few places in the official docs that suggest that Comrel members
> should not participate in Council appeals of decisions.  To date
> Comrel members have recused themselves from Council appeals.  So,
> while I think most of the community is wrong on this, and Gentoo's
> standards are inconsistent with how most organizations and governments
> are run, ultimately I don't make the rules (we Council members try to
> follow the rules, and certainly I'd expect to be called on it if I
> didn't).  Most in the community seem to prefer having the appeal be
> handled independently from the original decision, feeling that a
> second set of eyes could reach a different decision.  Certainly some
> courts work this way as well, though I don't think any would call this
> a result of a "conflict of interest."

Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to the
initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that lead
to the initial decision was valid and correct.

For both, a Council member has to impartially reflect upon ComRel's
actions to determine their correctness.  In the former, Council examines
how ComRel conducted itself, and in the latter, Council examines the
evidence presented to ComRel.

To reach the point of a Council appeal, there must have been a majority
vote in ComRel against an individual.  This means that the ComRel member
has already attested to the process and the outcome before the appeal
begins.  The evidence *should* be the same between ComRel's initial
decision and a Council appeal, as ComRel should be investigating and
giving an individual a chance to explain himself/herself.

The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in an
appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council member is
a ComRel member.  Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
individual.  However, the disadvantage of recusal is that it limits the
total number of votes.   This reduces the threshold of votes both to
exonerate and condemn an individual.  For that reason, I don't think
recusal is a bad solution as it is both to the person's detriment as
well as benefit.

Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence is
being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
"Impartiality" is.

-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:57 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
> Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to the
> initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that lead
> to the initial decision was valid and correct.
>

It seems far more important to me that the purpose is to confirm
whether the underlying complaint is valid, and whether the action
taken by Comrel was appropriate.  If the procedures/logic were flawed
that seems more like a refinement.

If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
again correctly this time?

When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.  We don't arbitrarily
revert the commit without thinking about the pros and cons of doing
this vs fixing the problem in some other way.  Sometimes a reversion
is appropriate solution, but sometimes the right solution is to move
things forward to a better state.  Ultimately we need to be concerned
with the user experience.

In the same way we need to be concerned with the community experience.
Sometimes overturning a comrel decision might be the right move, but
sometimes it might just need a nudge in the right direction, or no
change at all as far as the outcome goes, even if something went wrong
along the way.  Doing otherwise just leads to lawyering where we argue
over the process completely ignoring the reason why Comrel is
necessary in the first place.

> The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
> appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
> against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in an
> appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council member is
> a ComRel member.

That makes sense.

> Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
> individual.

I don't see this as bias, though bias has many definitions.  Typically
bias implies some kind of unfairness.  A fully-informed decision isn't
bias.

>
> Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence is
> being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
> imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
> Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
> "Impartiality" is.
>

Having previously heard a case doesn't mean that somebody isn't
treating all sides of the case equally, which is what partiality is.

Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
innocent was declared guilty by the lower court.  This would result in
a system where the lower court is a meaningless exercise in process,
because every single decision would be overturned.  You want the lower
court to follow the direction of the higher court, so that the
majority of decisions are never appealed in the first place, and most
appeals fail.

That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
only one opportunity to take action.  If Comrel simply ignored every
case or dismissed them all, they wouldn't be subject to any oversight
at all under the present system.

In an ideal world I'd certainly prefer to see more fresh blood in
Comrel, but this is an area we need to be careful about.  I'm less
keen on having Comrel entirely elected unless we fix the issue with
not being able to appeal inaction, because this essentially means we
have two different independent bodies steering CoC enforcement in
different directions.  If people are upset about the independence of
Council and Trustees then adding more independent governing bodies
that aren't entirely subordinate seems like a step in the wrong
direction.  Most organizations try to have just one body ultimately in
charge with delegation down from there.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:57 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
>>  Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to 
>> the
>>  initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that 
>> lead
>>  to the initial decision was valid and correct.
>> 
> 
> It seems far more important to me that the purpose is to confirm
> whether the underlying complaint is valid, and whether the action
> taken by Comrel was appropriate.  If the procedures/logic were flawed
> that seems more like a refinement.
> 
> If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
> turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
> better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
> again correctly this time?

In my opinion, sorta

Appropriate procedure IMHO is:

1.  Make comrel redo the "paperwork" properly
2.  Give comrel a deadline of 7 days to do so
3.  If the new "paperwork" supports the booting, leave them booted
4.  Otherwise, let the dev back in provisionally until they can be 
booted correctly.
4.a  It is probably implicit that the developer in question will be on 
implied probation.

Letting a bad developer back in is bad for gentoo, but if they really 
are provably bad then it should be easy for comrel to fix the 
paperwork.  If they can't fix it in a timely manner, that's a sign that 
their original case was messed up to begin with.

No, don't let the developer back in immediately, but do make sure that 
comrel gets a deadline to fix the paperwork if they want to keep the 
dev booted.

My main concern is making sure that a bad developer stays booted...but 
also making sure comrel can prove they're bad.  Letting the bad 
paperwork stagnate in limbo is bad for everyone.

> When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
> it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.

I'd prefer to make them fix it themselves, or at least ask for their 
permission to do it for them.  IMHO, they should be held responsible 
for their commits and bear the burden of correction so that they have 
an incentive not to screw up again...but we should also be ready to 
lend them a hand if they need it.

Soap did this helpfully for me during a recent pmaint pull.  I 
appreciated his ample help with the autotools stuff, and the only thing 
I resented was that he "messed up the paperwork" and I had to get my 
autotool lesson in a bit of a roundabout way.

> We don't arbitrarily
> revert the commit without thinking about the pros and cons of doing
> this vs fixing the problem in some other way.  Sometimes a reversion
> is appropriate solution, but sometimes the right solution is to move
> things forward to a better state.

> Ultimately we need to be concerned
> with the user experience.

In my opinion, I think that whether the mistake constitutes a 
regression should be a strong factor in whether we revert or just press 
forward with fixes.

Breaking something that worked before is a no-no.

> In the same way we need to be concerned with the community experience.
> Sometimes overturning a comrel decision might be the right move, but
> sometimes it might just need a nudge in the right direction, or no
> change at all as far as the outcome goes, even if something went wrong
> along the way.  Doing otherwise just leads to lawyering where we argue
> over the process completely ignoring the reason why Comrel is
> necessary in the first place.
> 
>>  The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
>>  appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
>>  against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in 
>> an
>>  appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council 
>> member is
>>  a ComRel member.
> 
> That makes sense.

I think this may well be part of why the wiki history I cited earlier 
was written the way it was.

>>  Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
>>  individual.
> 
> I don't see this as bias, though bias has many definitions.  Typically
> bias implies some kind of unfairness.  A fully-informed decision isn't
> bias.
> 
>>  Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence 
>> is
>>  being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
>>  imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
>>  Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
>>  "Impartiality" is.
> 
> Having previously heard a case doesn't mean that somebody isn't
> treating all sides of the case equally, which is what partiality is.
> 
> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
> innocent was declared guilty by the lower court.  This would result in
> a system where the lower court is a meaningless exercise in process,
> because every single decision would be overturned.  You want the lower
> court to follow the direction of the higher court, so that the
> majority of decisions are never appealed in the first place, and most
> appeals fail.

Yes, in my opinion, courts of appeal exist to serve as supervisors of 
lower courts.

However, there should not be the assumption that the lower court should 
feel free to "um...I'll do the best I can but if the appeals court is 
watching my back I don't have to worry about screwing up".

In the real world, lower courts are given WIDE deference on "issues of 
fact" once a jury or a judge has interpreted the evidence or testimony. 
 it is VERY hard to make an appeal based on a factual issue.

And on a side note, there are PLENTY of horror stories on slashdot 
about how the tango between trial court and appeals court winds up with 
each of them dumping responsibility on the other one, causing a circle 
of musical chairs where they BOTH drop the ball.

Don't get me started on the USPTO and prior art.

In my opinion, a trial court should be held responsible to do the best 
job it possibly can.  An appeals court should be held responsible to 
review the cases it gets to the best of its ability.  BOTH should treat 
their responsibilities with utmost care and should assume that any 
mistake they make is NOT going to be caught.



> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.

I think that dev A should have recourse for appeal...especially if they 
or their gentoo work was hampered by dev B's actions.

But I should emphasize that dev A should have a valid basis for the 
appeal, and it should be important enough that its worth the time of 
dev A taking the time ot make the appeal instead of fixing it himself.

> That is a system biased
> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
> only one opportunity to take action.  If Comrel simply ignored every
> case or dismissed them all, they wouldn't be subject to any oversight
> at all under the present system.
> 
> In an ideal world I'd certainly prefer to see more fresh blood in
> Comrel, but this is an area we need to be careful about.  I'm less
> keen on having Comrel entirely elected unless we fix the issue with
> not being able to appeal inaction, because this essentially means we
> have two different independent bodies steering CoC enforcement in
> different directions.

What if the comrel lead was elected by the council and not by the 
comrel members?  Comrel is a special case, due to its power to remove 
developers, and I think it should therefore be accountable to the 
global community, and not just to its own members.

TLDR:  I don't think comrel should be treated as a standard project.

> If people are upset about the independence of
> Council and Trustees then adding more independent governing bodies
> that aren't entirely subordinate seems like a step in the wrong
> direction.  Most organizations try to have just one body ultimately in
> charge with delegation down from there.
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1107 bytes --]

On 10/07/2016 02:22 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> What if the comrel lead was elected by the council and not by the comrel
> members?  Comrel is a special case, due to its power to remove
> developers, and I think it should therefore be accountable to the global
> community, and not just to its own members.

If wanting to be consistent with QA lead election process in GLEP 48
council would need to ratify / confirm the lead selection.

I'd prefer this over election by council in most cases, as internal
worksings within the project isn't easily monitored by outsiders, which
can be important in a lead election.

Overall I think something like this is a good idea, but note that if
Council disapprove of Comrel behavior, it already has the possibility to
remove a lead of any project c.f GLEP 39. I believe it is a good idea
for reasons of accountability as the council would, a priori, have a
stake in the behavior of a running lead.


-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

On 07/10/16 13:30, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 02:22 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> What if the comrel lead was elected by the council and not by the comrel
>> members?  Comrel is a special case, due to its power to remove
>> developers, and I think it should therefore be accountable to the global
>> community, and not just to its own members.
> If wanting to be consistent with QA lead election process in GLEP 48
> council would need to ratify / confirm the lead selection.
>
> I'd prefer this over election by council in most cases, as internal
> worksings within the project isn't easily monitored by outsiders, which
> can be important in a lead election.
>
> Overall I think something like this is a good idea, but note that if
> Council disapprove of Comrel behavior, it already has the possibility to
> remove a lead of any project c.f GLEP 39. I believe it is a good idea
> for reasons of accountability as the council would, a priori, have a
> stake in the behavior of a running lead.
>
>
I think this is actually quite a good idea, and reasonably practical to
implement ... any oppositions?

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
>> turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
>> better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
>> again correctly this time?
>
>
> In my opinion, sorta
>
> Appropriate procedure IMHO is:
>
> 1.  Make comrel redo the "paperwork" properly
> 2.  Give comrel a deadline of 7 days to do so
> 3.  If the new "paperwork" supports the booting, leave them booted
> 4.  Otherwise, let the dev back in provisionally until they can be booted
> correctly.
> 4.a  It is probably implicit that the developer in question will be on
> implied probation.
>
> Letting a bad developer back in is bad for gentoo, but if they really are
> provably bad then it should be easy for comrel to fix the paperwork.  If
> they can't fix it in a timely manner, that's a sign that their original case
> was messed up to begin with.

Or maybe it is just a sign that Comrel is overworked, or doesn't put a
lot of priority on such things?

> My main concern is making sure that a bad developer stays booted...but also
> making sure comrel can prove they're bad.  Letting the bad paperwork
> stagnate in limbo is bad for everyone.

Sure, but so is letting the bad dev back in.  Basically we're
punishing the community because of a failure to go through due
process.

>
>> When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
>> it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.
>
> I'd prefer to make them fix it themselves, or at least ask for their
> permission to do it for them.

That really depends.  If the tree is broken, it is against everybody's
interests to just leave it that way until the original dev checks
their email/irc/etc.  If the problem is minor, sure, let it wait.
However, for a serious problem we might not have that luxury.

>
> In my opinion, a trial court should be held responsible to do the best job
> it possibly can.  An appeals court should be held responsible to review the
> cases it gets to the best of its ability.  BOTH should treat their
> responsibilities with utmost care and should assume that any mistake they
> make is NOT going to be caught.
>

No argument.  But at the same time if Comrel currently has a backlog
of cases they aren't dealing with then there is a cost to increasing
the level of rigor.  That was one thing we didn't get a measure of.
How many cases are brought to Comrel and not seriously evaluated due
to lack of time?

>
>
>> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
>> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
>> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
>> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
>> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
>> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.
>
>
> I think that dev A should have recourse for appeal...especially if they or
> their gentoo work was hampered by dev B's actions.
>
> But I should emphasize that dev A should have a valid basis for the appeal,
> and it should be important enough that its worth the time of dev A taking
> the time ot make the appeal instead of fixing it himself.

Well, any dev should have a valid basis of appeal.  Right now we have
few Comrel decisions in the first place, let alone appeals.  However,
I'm aware of one appeal on the basis of Comrel inaction.  I don't
think it is harmful to say that in that case the Council didn't feel
Comrel had reached a point yet where escalation was necessary.
However, that does create a bit of a challenge because Council doesn't
really want to deal with the entire backlog of Comrel cases if Comrel
isn't able to keep up.  Imagine if stale stablereqs could be appealed
to Council...  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>  On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, 
>>> and it
>>>  turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
>>>  better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
>>>  again correctly this time?
>> 
>> 
>>  In my opinion, sorta
>> 
>>  Appropriate procedure IMHO is:
>> 
>>  1.  Make comrel redo the "paperwork" properly
>>  2.  Give comrel a deadline of 7 days to do so
>>  3.  If the new "paperwork" supports the booting, leave them booted
>>  4.  Otherwise, let the dev back in provisionally until they can be 
>> booted
>>  correctly.
>>  4.a  It is probably implicit that the developer in question will be 
>> on
>>  implied probation.
>> 
>>  Letting a bad developer back in is bad for gentoo, but if they 
>> really are
>>  provably bad then it should be easy for comrel to fix the 
>> paperwork.  If
>>  they can't fix it in a timely manner, that's a sign that their 
>> original case
>>  was messed up to begin with.
> 
> Or maybe it is just a sign that Comrel is overworked, or doesn't put a
> lot of priority on such things?

My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also 
important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they have 
a clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.

>>  My main concern is making sure that a bad developer stays 
>> booted...but also
>>  making sure comrel can prove they're bad.  Letting the bad paperwork
>>  stagnate in limbo is bad for everyone.
> 
> Sure, but so is letting the bad dev back in.  Basically we're
> punishing the community because of a failure to go through due
> process.

But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to 
begin with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the 
developer is actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.

>>>  When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not 
>>> to do
>>>  it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.
>> 
>>  I'd prefer to make them fix it themselves, or at least ask for their
>>  permission to do it for them.
> 
> That really depends.  If the tree is broken, it is against everybody's
> interests to just leave it that way until the original dev checks
> their email/irc/etc.  If the problem is minor, sure, let it wait.
> However, for a serious problem we might not have that luxury.

Agreed, and I was citing regressions as one such "serious problem"

There are special cases, yes.

>>  In my opinion, a trial court should be held responsible to do the 
>> best job
>>  it possibly can.  An appeals court should be held responsible to 
>> review the
>>  cases it gets to the best of its ability.  BOTH should treat their
>>  responsibilities with utmost care and should assume that any 
>> mistake they
>>  make is NOT going to be caught.
> 
> No argument.  But at the same time if Comrel currently has a backlog
> of cases they aren't dealing with then there is a cost to increasing
> the level of rigor.

What is the cost of *not* increasing the rigor?

Honestly, I see removing a good developer by mistake as a social 
version of a regression-type bug.

> That was one thing we didn't get a measure of.
> How many cases are brought to Comrel and not seriously evaluated due
> to lack of time?

Maybe comrel should adopt the same sort of "triage" procedures that 
ubuntu uses to classify bugs?

I think every comrel petition should be kept on record, and then we 
have a class-based priority for which ones get solved first.  Comrel 
stays as busy as it wants to, and it deals with the most important 
issues first.

A toxic asshole who is sabotaging the community and can do a lot of 
damage if not removed, would probably be a high priority case, for 
example.

If nothing else, the number of "lower priority" cases left dangling in 
"backlog" could be a useful statistic.

Also, I just realized that the "everyone votes" blocks comrel manpower 
from scaling.

What if each member of comrel was granted the discretion to handle 
everything as they themselves saw fit, subject to the provision that 
the comrel lead/comrel as a group/the council could receive appeals?

Judge Dredds all on a squad, but all of them watched by higher powers 
ot make sure they do the best they can and can have their badges guided 
or if necessary yanked if they screw up a decision.

>>>  That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
>>>  Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct 
>>> says
>>>  that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
>>>  being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
>>>  doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
>>>  dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.
>> 
>>  I think that dev A should have recourse for appeal...especially if 
>> they or
>>  their gentoo work was hampered by dev B's actions.
>> 
>>  But I should emphasize that dev A should have a valid basis for the 
>> appeal,
>>  and it should be important enough that its worth the time of dev A 
>> taking
>>  the time ot make the appeal instead of fixing it himself.
> 
> Well, any dev should have a valid basis of appeal.  Right now we have
> few Comrel decisions in the first place, let alone appeals.  However,
> I'm aware of one appeal on the basis of Comrel inaction.  I don't
> think it is harmful to say that in that case the Council didn't feel
> Comrel had reached a point yet where escalation was necessary.
> However, that does create a bit of a challenge because Council doesn't
> really want to deal with the entire backlog of Comrel cases if Comrel
> isn't able to keep up.

See earlier point about letting individual comrel members having 
discretion to handle things on the spot Judge Dredd style...so long as 
they are supervised by someone who can evaluate their performance and 
if necessary intervene.

> Imagine if stale stablereqs could be appealed
> to Council...  :)

Maybe not stale stablereqs themselves.  This is a volunteer project 
with finite manpower.

However, someone deliberately *ignoring* a stablereq when there's a 
large need for it MIGHT be more worthy of an escalation.  But merely 
being overworked should not be an offense, and it would probably go 
through comrel first.

> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also
> important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they have a
> clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.

Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.

>
> But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to begin
> with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the developer is
> actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
>

Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
the mistakes, not keep them around.

>
> Also, I just realized that the "everyone votes" blocks comrel manpower from
> scaling.
>
> What if each member of comrel was granted the discretion to handle
> everything as they themselves saw fit, subject to the provision that the
> comrel lead/comrel as a group/the council could receive appeals?

I tend to agree with this, or a process where Comrel assigns a small
group of devs to each case.  The Comrel lead or maybe the entirety of
Comrel could keep a general eye on things as a level of QA and there
would still be Council appeals.  I've heard the issue raised that the
system where all of Comrel deals with every case also causes issues
when some members of Comrel aren't around or don't have time to deal
with every case.  Basically it makes all of Comrel as fast as its
slowest member.  Imagine if every stablereq required every member of
an arch team to approve it?  It would be like Ago trying to swim with
concrete shoes.

Indeed, with the model where all Comrel members deciding every case
recruiting more manpower to Comrel would actually have the ironic
effect of lowering their productivity.  The best thing you could do in
such a model is instead boot out the slowest contributors.

>> Imagine if stale stablereqs could be appealed
>> to Council...  :)
>
>
> Maybe not stale stablereqs themselves.  This is a volunteer project with
> finite manpower.
>
> However, someone deliberately *ignoring* a stablereq when there's a large
> need for it MIGHT be more worthy of an escalation.  But merely being
> overworked should not be an offense, and it would probably go through comrel
> first.

If you punish people for ignoring important bugs at times, then you
just encourage people to not sign up for the job in the first place.
If you have a single queue multiple server model (which is how most
projects tend to work, including arch teams), then the queue only
stalls if all the servers stall.  The solution in this case isn't to
kick out servers, but rather to encourage more to show up and deal
with the high priority bugs (the reality is that our servers don't
strictly work on bugs in priority order, though again I think that
trying to change this could actually lower throughput).  Even if a
server only closes one bug per year, that still has a net positive
impact on the queue (assuming zero overhead, which is mostly true for
the way we work).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings 
> <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its 
>> also
>>  important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they 
>> have a
>>  clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
> 
> Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
> but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
> in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.

What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly 
locked out because his case got left in limbo.

>>  But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to 
>> begin
>>  with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the 
>> developer is
>>  actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.

> Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
> conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
> the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
> the mistakes, not keep them around.

And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?

>>  Also, I just realized that the "everyone votes" blocks comrel 
>> manpower from
>>  scaling.
>> 
>>  What if each member of comrel was granted the discretion to handle
>>  everything as they themselves saw fit, subject to the provision 
>> that the
>>  comrel lead/comrel as a group/the council could receive appeals?
> 
> I tend to agree with this, or a process where Comrel assigns a small
> group of devs to each case.  The Comrel lead or maybe the entirety of
> Comrel could keep a general eye on things as a level of QA and there
> would still be Council appeals.  I've heard the issue raised that the
> system where all of Comrel deals with every case also causes issues
> when some members of Comrel aren't around or don't have time to deal
> with every case.  Basically it makes all of Comrel as fast as its
> slowest member.  Imagine if every stablereq required every member of
> an arch team to approve it?  It would be like Ago trying to swim with
> concrete shoes.

And this is exactly why I suggest breaking comrel up into a team of 
independent agents overseen by guidelines that preserve uniformity.

Being geeks we are all probably familiar with the benefits of 
parallelization.  It's like

# make comrel -jN

:)

And that means comrel shouldn't be drowning in its own red tape.

> Indeed, with the model where all Comrel members deciding every case
> recruiting more manpower to Comrel would actually have the ironic
> effect of lowering their productivity.  The best thing you could do in
> such a model is instead boot out the slowest contributors.
> 
>>>  Imagine if stale stablereqs could be appealed
>>>  to Council...  :)
>> 
>>  Maybe not stale stablereqs themselves.  This is a volunteer project 
>> with
>>  finite manpower.
>> 
>>  However, someone deliberately *ignoring* a stablereq when there's a 
>> large
>>  need for it MIGHT be more worthy of an escalation.  But merely being
>>  overworked should not be an offense, and it would probably go 
>> through comrel
>>  first.
> 
> If you punish people for ignoring important bugs at times, then you
> just encourage people to not sign up for the job in the first place.
> If you have a single queue multiple server model (which is how most
> projects tend to work, including arch teams), then the queue only
> stalls if all the servers stall.  The solution in this case isn't to
> kick out servers, but rather to encourage more to show up and deal
> with the high priority bugs (the reality is that our servers don't
> strictly work on bugs in priority order, though again I think that
> trying to change this could actually lower throughput).  Even if a
> server only closes one bug per year, that still has a net positive
> impact on the queue (assuming zero overhead, which is mostly true for
> the way we work).

My point is that going after people for deliberately ignoring stablereq 
is *less* stupid than spamming council with appeals on stale stablereq.

I never said it was a good idea, just less bad.

The proper solution would probably be an algorithm that flags the most 
urgent stablereq's.

stablereq triage score = age in days * number of reverse deps blocked 
on the stablereq

Google lives and breathes and eats algorithms, and they even use gentoo 
devs as a recruiting ground (hello recruiters!).
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5528 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 07:32 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>  My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also
>>>  important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they
>>> have a
>>>  clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
>>
>> Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
>> but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
>> in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.
> 
> What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly
> locked out because his case got left in limbo.
> 
>>>  But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to
>>> begin
>>>  with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the
>>> developer is
>>>  actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
> 
>> Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
>> conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
>> the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
>> the mistakes, not keep them around.
> 
> And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?

You don't and I think that's really being overlooked.  If ComRel screwed
up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
done correctly and the developer will be removed.

To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
to be both naive and dangerous.

-Nicholas Vinson

> 
>>>  Also, I just realized that the "everyone votes" blocks comrel
>>> manpower from
>>>  scaling.
>>>
>>>  What if each member of comrel was granted the discretion to handle
>>>  everything as they themselves saw fit, subject to the provision that
>>> the
>>>  comrel lead/comrel as a group/the council could receive appeals?
>>
>> I tend to agree with this, or a process where Comrel assigns a small
>> group of devs to each case.  The Comrel lead or maybe the entirety of
>> Comrel could keep a general eye on things as a level of QA and there
>> would still be Council appeals.  I've heard the issue raised that the
>> system where all of Comrel deals with every case also causes issues
>> when some members of Comrel aren't around or don't have time to deal
>> with every case.  Basically it makes all of Comrel as fast as its
>> slowest member.  Imagine if every stablereq required every member of
>> an arch team to approve it?  It would be like Ago trying to swim with
>> concrete shoes.
> 
> And this is exactly why I suggest breaking comrel up into a team of
> independent agents overseen by guidelines that preserve uniformity.
> 
> Being geeks we are all probably familiar with the benefits of
> parallelization.  It's like
> 
> # make comrel -jN
> 
> :)
> 
> And that means comrel shouldn't be drowning in its own red tape.
> 
>> Indeed, with the model where all Comrel members deciding every case
>> recruiting more manpower to Comrel would actually have the ironic
>> effect of lowering their productivity.  The best thing you could do in
>> such a model is instead boot out the slowest contributors.
>>
>>>>  Imagine if stale stablereqs could be appealed
>>>>  to Council...  :)
>>>
>>>  Maybe not stale stablereqs themselves.  This is a volunteer project
>>> with
>>>  finite manpower.
>>>
>>>  However, someone deliberately *ignoring* a stablereq when there's a
>>> large
>>>  need for it MIGHT be more worthy of an escalation.  But merely being
>>>  overworked should not be an offense, and it would probably go
>>> through comrel
>>>  first.
>>
>> If you punish people for ignoring important bugs at times, then you
>> just encourage people to not sign up for the job in the first place.
>> If you have a single queue multiple server model (which is how most
>> projects tend to work, including arch teams), then the queue only
>> stalls if all the servers stall.  The solution in this case isn't to
>> kick out servers, but rather to encourage more to show up and deal
>> with the high priority bugs (the reality is that our servers don't
>> strictly work on bugs in priority order, though again I think that
>> trying to change this could actually lower throughput).  Even if a
>> server only closes one bug per year, that still has a net positive
>> impact on the queue (assuming zero overhead, which is mostly true for
>> the way we work).
> 
> My point is that going after people for deliberately ignoring stablereq
> is *less* stupid than spamming council with appeals on stale stablereq.
> 
> I never said it was a good idea, just less bad.
> 
> The proper solution would probably be an algorithm that flags the most
> urgent stablereq's.
> 
> stablereq triage score = age in days * number of reverse deps blocked on
> the stablereq
> 
> Google lives and breathes and eats algorithms, and they even use gentoo
> devs as a recruiting ground (hello recruiters!).
>> -- 
>> Rich
>>
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> If the developer is really a problem,
> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
> done correctly and the developer will be removed.

Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
try-try-try-fail.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> 
wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>  If the developer is really a problem,
>>  then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the 
>> developer
>>  and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" 
>> will be
>>  done correctly and the developer will be removed.
> 
> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
> try-try-try-fail.

In this case it would seem that the details of the particular case 
would matter.

Anything where bringing back a developer would cause *legal* issues 
IMHO automatically qualifies it as a "special case".

...but if that's so, then comrel had better have done a good job 
documenting the case.

If there's an *urgent* reason to retire a developer in a hurry it 
should be very easy and simple to document.

> --
> Kristian Fiskerstrand
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If there's an *urgent* reason to retire a developer in a hurry it should be
> very easy and simple to document.
>

The fact that it is easy and simple to do doesn't mean that it will
happen.  Stable requests are generally simple and easy to handle, but
a LOT of them languish.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On 07/10/16 16:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there's an *urgent* reason to retire a developer in a hurry it should be
>> very easy and simple to document.
>>
> The fact that it is easy and simple to do doesn't mean that it will
> happen.  Stable requests are generally simple and easy to handle, but
> a LOT of them languish.
>
The first section of your final sentence would seem to contradict the
second ... surely if its simple, it's possible to mass handle, and even
automate?!


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 08:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>> If the developer is really a problem,
>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
> 
> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
s
Maybe, but I'd happily accept any bad PR that resulted in me choosing
not to punish a dev because it was unclear that the dev deserved it.

And as for the legal issues argument, if such a scenario was to occur,
then I argue the dev should still be brought back (because again it's
not immediately clear that the dismissal was proper), but the Trustees
should also be notified.  They would be the ones who should handle such
situations not the Council or ComRel.

-Nicholas Vinson

> try-try-try-fail.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]

On 10/07/2016 05:07 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/07/2016 08:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>> If the developer is really a problem,
>>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
>>
>> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
>> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
> s
> Maybe, but I'd happily accept any bad PR that resulted in me choosing
> not to punish a dev because it was unclear that the dev deserved it.
> 

At that point it becomes a bit murky. if bringing in a dev again it'd
require monitoring by comrel at the very least to avoid issues (what if
the dev has a grudge and commits a "fix" that is malicious in nature etc?).

One alternative is to consider it a pure utility-function / cost-benefit
consideration at that point where U(f(),g(),h()) where f() is determined
by the value of the commits/support of the developer while being a dev,
and g() the cost of maintenance burden, and h() is event risk to overall
community or negativity due to pushback from other existing and
potential devs wanting the one in question gone, so it can reduce
long-term recruitment due to the negative PR etc.


-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1660 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 08:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 05:07 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/2016 08:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>>> If the developer is really a problem,
>>>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>>>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>>>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
>>> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
>> s
>> Maybe, but I'd happily accept any bad PR that resulted in me choosing
>> not to punish a dev because it was unclear that the dev deserved it.
>>
> 
> At that point it becomes a bit murky. if bringing in a dev again it'd
> require monitoring by comrel at the very least to avoid issues (what if
> the dev has a grudge and commits a "fix" that is malicious in nature etc?).
> 
> One alternative is to consider it a pure utility-function / cost-benefit
> consideration at that point where U(f(),g(),h()) where f() is determined
> by the value of the commits/support of the developer while being a dev,
> and g() the cost of maintenance burden, and h() is event risk to overall
> community or negativity due to pushback from other existing and
> potential devs wanting the one in question gone, so it can reduce
> long-term recruitment due to the negative PR etc.
> 

Certainly, you could do that.  However, I would ask for objective
measures for U(), f(), g(), and h() which wouldn't be an easy task.

> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Certainly, you could do that.  However, I would ask for objective
> measures for U(), f(), g(), and h() which wouldn't be an easy task.
>

I think this thread went largely off the deep end a number of posts
ago, but there really isn't anything objective about the Code of
Conduct.  Ultimately what kind of behavior we want Gentoo to be
associated with is a judgement call.

If we tolerate more behavior, we'll attract people that we wouldn't
otherwise attract, and we'll lose people that we wouldn't otherwise
lose.  The same is true if we don't tolerate certain behavior.

Maybe if we went closed source and started charging for Gentoo we
could invest more in developers and that would result in a lot more
Gentoo productivity, and a better product for our paying customers.
Even if we could all agree that was true, I don't think it is
compatible with our mission.  Certainly I would find someplace else to
spend my time if that was the route Gentoo followed.

Ultimately I think all of this comes down to, what kind of Code of
Conduct do we want to have, and are we serious about enforcing it?
This thread seems to be mostly about questions around whether we need
a Code of Conduct (at least, that is how it started, and it has hit
numerous topics after the original poster disappeared).  I started
another thread to try to talk about ways to improve how we enforce the
Code of Conduct, and intend to start others.

I don't think many people would argue that there isn't room for
improvement.  However, I think it is unrealistic to expect that the
final solution will be 100% objective, or that it won't ultimately end
up with trusting somebody to make the right call.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think many people would argue that there isn't room for
> improvement.  However, I think it is unrealistic to expect that the
> final solution will be 100% objective, or that it won't ultimately end
> up with trusting somebody to make the right call.

Having that trust placed in someone selected by a democratic process 
would be about as close to objective as possible.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think many people would argue that there isn't room for
>> improvement.  However, I think it is unrealistic to expect that the
>> final solution will be 100% objective, or that it won't ultimately end
>> up with trusting somebody to make the right call.
>
> Having that trust placed in someone selected by a democratic process would
> be about as close to objective as possible.
>

Well, that's basically the current state, as far as appeals are concerned.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  I don't think many people would argue that there isn't room for
>>>  improvement.  However, I think it is unrealistic to expect that the
>>>  final solution will be 100% objective, or that it won't ultimately 
>>> end
>>>  up with trusting somebody to make the right call.
>> 
>>  Having that trust placed in someone selected by a democratic 
>> process would
>>  be about as close to objective as possible.
> 
> Well, that's basically the current state, as far as appeals are 
> concerned.

I meant more whatever position would have any sort of supervisory role 
over comrel.  Not how appeals are treated.


> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2016 08:00 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 10/07/2016 04:54 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>> If the developer is really a problem,
>>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
>>
>> Not necessarily, bringing back might on its own open up for especially
>> PR issues, but also potentially legal ones. So its not as simple as
> s
> Maybe, but I'd happily accept any bad PR that resulted in me choosing
> not to punish a dev because it was unclear that the dev deserved it.

Of course, but as far as I can tell nobody is being punished that
doesn't deserve it.  Of course, I can only go by the appeals I've
seen.

> And as for the legal issues argument, if such a scenario was to occur,
> then I argue the dev should still be brought back (because again it's
> not immediately clear that the dismissal was proper)

No organization I'm aware of rehires or otherwise brings people back
into an organization solely because there is a dispute that they were
rightfully gotten rid of.  In that case you still have the threat of
legal action due to allegations of improper dismissal, but you also
have the threat of legal action because of failure to moderate your
communications/etc.

I think another issue to keep in mind that people who are dismissed
from Gentoo have essentially zero recourse unless it was grounded in
something like discrimination on a protected class (and even then I'm
not sure exactly how the laws pertain, not that we would ever tolerate
such a thing).  However, Gentoo can be sued for letting somebody use
our communications media to perform tortious activities.  So, the
legal incentives are fairly different from what an employer might
face.

In any case, I fully support allowing the Trustees to ensure that our
policies are legally compliant.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> 
wrote:
> No organization I'm aware of rehires or otherwise brings people back
> into an organization solely because there is a dispute that they were
> rightfully gotten rid of.  In that case you still have the threat of
> legal action due to allegations of improper dismissal, but you also
> have the threat of legal action because of failure to moderate your
> communications/etc.
> 
> I think another issue to keep in mind that people who are dismissed
> from Gentoo have essentially zero recourse

Should it be this way?  Or are you only talking about legal issues?

> unless it was grounded in
> something like discrimination on a protected class (and even then I'm
> not sure exactly how the laws pertain, not that we would ever tolerate
> such a thing).  However, Gentoo can be sued for letting somebody use
> our communications media to perform tortious activities.

I think this would at a minimum require infra to be negligent in some 
way first.  Hosts and sites are generally not resonsible for the 
actions of their users, especially when those users are trespassers or 
hackers.


> So, the
> legal incentives are fairly different from what an employer might
> face.
> 
> In any case, I fully support allowing the Trustees to ensure that our
> policies are legally compliant.
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> I think another issue to keep in mind that people who are dismissed
>> from Gentoo have essentially zero recourse
>
> Should it be this way?  Or are you only talking about legal issues?

To clarify, I was talking purely about legal issues, with the caveats
in the remainder of that sentence.

Beyond appealing to Council, if somebody changes their ways they can
always re-apply to join.  Obviously these applications get scrutiny.

>>  However, Gentoo can be sued for letting somebody use
>> our communications media to perform tortious activities.
>
> I think this would at a minimum require infra to be negligent in some way
> first.  Hosts and sites are generally not resonsible for the actions of
> their users, especially when those users are trespassers or hackers.

You need to exercise reasonable care.  If we ban somebody, and they
show up under an alias and they get off some tortious comments before
they're banned again, I doubt any court would hold Gentoo responsible.
On the other hand if we know somebody is a problem and do nothing
about it, that is a different situation, and that was the point I was
making.

And beyond legal responsibility it is horrible for our reputation.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]


On 08/10/16 01:54, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]:
> And beyond legal responsibility it is horrible for our reputation.
>
Wait, Gentoo has a reputation now?! [good or bad....]


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 491 bytes --]

On 2016.10.07 16:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip]

> In any case, I fully support allowing the Trustees to ensure that our
> policies are legally compliant.
> 
> -- 
> Rich
>
 
That's only the first step. We also need to be able to demonstrate
that we have been following our legally compliant policies. 
Well, if we are ever tapped on the shoulder.

In general, can we do that?

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/07/2016 07:32 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>  On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>  On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings 
>>> <shentino@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>   My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its 
>>>> also
>>>>   important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they
>>>>  have a
>>>>   clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
>>> 
>>>  Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
>>>  but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed 
>>> back
>>>  in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.
>> 
>>  What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly
>>  locked out because his case got left in limbo.
>> 
>>>>   But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad 
>>>> to
>>>>  begin
>>>>   with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the
>>>>  developer is
>>>>   actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
>> 
>>>  Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
>>>  conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake 
>>> and
>>>  the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to 
>>> fix
>>>  the mistakes, not keep them around.
>> 
>>  And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?
> 
> You don't and I think that's really being overlooked.

That was actually my point.

> If ComRel screwed
> up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
> includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will 
> be
> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
> 
> To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
> was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
> filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
> to be both naive and dangerous.

We also want to avoid the case of this:

* Good developer gets caught in a misunderstanding
* They get railroaded
* After being deprived of the opportunity to make good contributions, 
even if they need mentoring, they go sour on Gentoo as a whole and find 
somewhere else to contribute.
* They walk away feeling resentful and we make an enemy.

The whole point of due process is to catch mistakes before they get set 
in stone.  If someone turns into a sourpuss because they got screwed 
over, even by mistake, that is bad.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If ComRel screwed
>> up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
>> includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
>>
>> To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
>> was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
>> filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
>> to be both naive and dangerous.
>
> We also want to avoid the case of this:
>
> * Good developer gets caught in a misunderstanding
> * They get railroaded
> * After being deprived of the opportunity to make good contributions, even
> if they need mentoring, they go sour on Gentoo as a whole and find somewhere
> else to contribute.
> * They walk away feeling resentful and we make an enemy.

When has this ever happened?

The whole point of the Comrel process is to work with people first,
and get rid of them as a last resort.  Based on the stats getting rid
of devs is very rare.

Sure, nobody wants to railroad somebody.  However, for that to happen
both Comrel and the Council would have to misjudge the situation.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2016 07:32 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>  My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also
>>>>  important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they
>>>> have a
>>>>  clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
>>>
>>> Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
>>> but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
>>> in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.
>>
>> What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly
>> locked out because his case got left in limbo.
>>
>>>>  But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to
>>>> begin
>>>>  with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the
>>>> developer is
>>>>  actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
>>
>>> Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
>>> conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
>>> the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
>>> the mistakes, not keep them around.
>>
>> And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?

The same way Comrel knows.  You look at the evidence and draw a
conclusion.  If you don't trust somebody to do that, you shouldn't be
putting them on the Council.

>
> If ComRel screwed
> up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
> includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
> done correctly and the developer will be removed.

And what happens when somebody sues Gentoo or one of its contributors
for not doing enough to deal with a problem, because we're fighting
over process when there is agreement that the person in question ought
to go?

> To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
> was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
> filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
> to be both naive and dangerous.

This would only be a valid criticism if every complaint resolved in
the harshest possible punishment.  From the sound of things most
complaints result in no action at all.  As far as I can tell most
Comrel actions aren't even appealed.  After all, the matter that
started this whole discussion wasn't even appealed to the whole of
Comrel let alone to the Council.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3668 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 08:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2016 07:32 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also
>>>>>  important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they
>>>>> have a
>>>>>  clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
>>>> but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
>>>> in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.
>>>
>>> What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly
>>> locked out because his case got left in limbo.
>>>
>>>>>  But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to
>>>>> begin
>>>>>  with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the
>>>>> developer is
>>>>>  actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
>>>
>>>> Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
>>>> conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
>>>> the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
>>>> the mistakes, not keep them around.
>>>
>>> And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?
> 
> The same way Comrel knows.  You look at the evidence and draw a
> conclusion.  If you don't trust somebody to do that, you shouldn't be
> putting them on the Council.
> 
>>
>> If ComRel screwed
>> up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
>> includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
> 
> And what happens when somebody sues Gentoo or one of its contributors
> for not doing enough to deal with a problem, because we're fighting
> over process when there is agreement that the person in question ought
> to go? 

The same thing that happens when somebody sues Gentoo or one of its
contributors for discrimination or some other related charge because it
overreacted to a problem and punished an innocent developer.

That said, if there are concerns about legal issues relating to Gentoo
policy or procedures, then the Trustees need to be notified so they can
look into it.  Neither the council nor ComRel are staffed with the
expectation to understand or act on potential legal issues.  The
Trustees, on the other hand, are expected to address legal concerns in
whatever manner is appropriate.  They are the ones, after-all, that
would have to deal with any lawsuit against the Gentoo foundation.

> 
>> To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
>> was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
>> filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
>> to be both naive and dangerous.
> 
> This would only be a valid criticism if every complaint resolved in
> the harshest possible punishment.  From the sound of things most
> complaints result in no action at all.  As far as I can tell most
> Comrel actions aren't even appealed.  After all, the matter that
> started this whole discussion wasn't even appealed to the whole of
> Comrel let alone to the Council.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

On 10/07/2016 04:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> If you punish people for ignoring important bugs at times, then you
> just encourage people to not sign up for the job in the first place.

That might actually be a good thing, as it indicates the package etc
needs maintenance. Signing up is voluntary, once you sign up you have a
responsibility to either keep up to date or give away
packages/responsibilities to others.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

On 07/10/16 15:36, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 04:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If you punish people for ignoring important bugs at times, then you
>> just encourage people to not sign up for the job in the first place.
> That might actually be a good thing, as it indicates the package etc
> needs maintenance. Signing up is voluntary, once you sign up you have a
> responsibility to either keep up to date or give away
> packages/responsibilities to others.
>
This is fine provided there are *others* to start with ... as things
stand, Gentoo has a problem with "warm bodies" which needs addressing,
as I hope you are already aware ...

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7423 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 04:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:57 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
>> Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to the
>> initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that lead
>> to the initial decision was valid and correct.
>>
> 
> It seems far more important to me that the purpose is to confirm
> whether the underlying complaint is valid, and whether the action
> taken by Comrel was appropriate.  If the procedures/logic were flawed
> that seems more like a refinement.
> 
> If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
> turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
> better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
> again correctly this time?
> 
> When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
> it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.  We don't arbitrarily
> revert the commit without thinking about the pros and cons of doing
> this vs fixing the problem in some other way.  Sometimes a reversion
> is appropriate solution, but sometimes the right solution is to move
> things forward to a better state.  Ultimately we need to be concerned
> with the user experience.
> 
> In the same way we need to be concerned with the community experience.
> Sometimes overturning a comrel decision might be the right move, but
> sometimes it might just need a nudge in the right direction, or no
> change at all as far as the outcome goes, even if something went wrong
> along the way.  Doing otherwise just leads to lawyering where we argue
> over the process completely ignoring the reason why Comrel is
> necessary in the first place.
> 
>> The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
>> appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
>> against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in an
>> appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council member is
>> a ComRel member.
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
>> Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
>> individual.
> 
> I don't see this as bias, though bias has many definitions.  Typically
> bias implies some kind of unfairness.  A fully-informed decision isn't
> bias.
> 
>>
>> Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence is
>> being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
>> imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
>> Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
>> "Impartiality" is.
>>
> 
> Having previously heard a case doesn't mean that somebody isn't
> treating all sides of the case equally, which is what partiality is.
> 
> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was

I'm not following this logic.  Are you defining independence as also
being equals?  The appeals courts don't manage the lower courts in the
same way a company manages its employees.  And while it may not be
universally true in the US, if a lower court decides someone is not
guilty (or a jury for that court does), then it's over.  The appeals
court opinion is moot.

ComRel and the council share the same setup.  If ComRel chooses not to
discipline a dev due to a complaint, then no appeals can be filed.
Afterall, the complainant will never know what actions ComRel did or did
not take in regards to the complaint unless the accused mentions it.

> innocent was declared guilty by the lower court.  This would result in
> a system where the lower court is a meaningless exercise in process,
> because every single decision would be overturned.  You want the lower
> court to follow the direction of the higher court, so that the
> majority of decisions are never appealed in the first place, and most
> appeals fail.
> 
> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but

This is a good thing.  Should you really have to worry so much about
what you say in emails, forum posts, IRC channels, so you don't offend
anyone and risk them reporting you and then you getting an X duration ban?

Like it or not, there are going to be conflicting opinions and
discussions on those opinions will sometimes get heated and on occasion
complaints will be filed because emotions have taken over, but none of
that is justification for ComRel to intervene.


> only one opportunity to take action.  If Comrel simply ignored every
> case or dismissed them all, they wouldn't be subject to any oversight
> at all under the present system.

That's an accountability problem not a bias for action problem.  This is
a point that has been made several times in this thread already.  There
needs to be better/more ways to handle accountability concerns when
dealing with ComRel.  The fact that its inner workings are basically a
black box to most on the outside is not a good thing.  There's nothing
positive of going to someone out-of-the-blue and saying "We received
complaints about you, we agreed with the complaints, so here's what your
punishment is.  Don't like it file an appeal".

> 
> In an ideal world I'd certainly prefer to see more fresh blood in
> Comrel, but this is an area we need to be careful about.  I'm less
> keen on having Comrel entirely elected unless we fix the issue with
> not being able to appeal inaction, because this essentially means we
> have two different independent bodies steering CoC enforcement in
> different directions.  If people are upset about the independence of
> Council and Trustees then adding more independent governing bodies
> that aren't entirely subordinate seems like a step in the wrong
> direction.  Most organizations try to have just one body ultimately in
> charge with delegation down from there.
> 
I don't recall anyone suggesting that comrel become independent of the
council.  What I have seen and personally suggested was that comrel
membership be voted in by the full Gentoo dev community just as the
council is.  Everything would remain the same.  That means ComRel is
still overseen by the Council and anyone who doesn't agree with a ComRel
decision can appeal.

Comrel isn't a normal project, it has the ability to significantly
affect Gentoo as a whole.  The council has the same ability.  I see
little wisdom in letting people join ComRel without a vetting from the
greater community when when Council members are required to go through
such a vetting process.

-Nicholas Vinson


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2016 04:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
>> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
>> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
>> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
>> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
>> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
>
> I'm not following this logic.  Are you defining independence as also
> being equals?  The appeals courts don't manage the lower courts in the
> same way a company manages its employees.

My understanding is that in most courts higher courts are able to
discipline the members of lower courts.  If a lower court doesn't
follow the precedence of a higher court, the lower court membership
can be adjusted to one that will.  This is often the case even when
the lower court members are elected, but election of judges tends to
cause many problems.

> And while it may not be
> universally true in the US, if a lower court decides someone is not
> guilty (or a jury for that court does), then it's over.  The appeals
> court opinion is moot.

I don't think this is true.  I believe the prosecution is allowed to
appeal decisions.  An appeal doesn't constitute double jeopardy.  Now,
many of these decisions are findings of fact for which appeals courts
tend to not pay much attention, but that doesn't mean that there was
no opportunity for appeal.

>>
>> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
>> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
>> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
>> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
>> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
>> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
>> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
>
> This is a good thing.  Should you really have to worry so much about
> what you say in emails, forum posts, IRC channels, so you don't offend
> anyone and risk them reporting you and then you getting an X duration ban?

You won't be expelled for offending somebody.  You'll be expelled for
demonstrating a persistent inability to follow the code of conduct.
If you're about to do something that violates the CoC, then of course
the possibility of enforcement should give you pause.

>
> Like it or not, there are going to be conflicting opinions and
> discussions on those opinions will sometimes get heated and on occasion
> complaints will be filed because emotions have taken over, but none of
> that is justification for ComRel to intervene.
>

Of course.  I'm not suggesting that Comrel should resolve every issue
in an expulsion.  And if somebody feels that Comrel didn't go far
enough I do think they should have the same right of appeal as
somebody who feels they went to far, but that doesn't mean that the
Council has to agree with them.

> There's nothing
> positive of going to someone out-of-the-blue and saying "We received
> complaints about you, we agreed with the complaints, so here's what your
> punishment is.  Don't like it file an appeal".

In the few appeals I've seen, this was not the approach Comrel took.
They would be overturned on appeal a lot more often if that were the
case.

> I don't recall anyone suggesting that comrel become independent of the
> council.  What I have seen and personally suggested was that comrel
> membership be voted in by the full Gentoo dev community just as the
> council is.  Everything would remain the same.  That means ComRel is
> still overseen by the Council and anyone who doesn't agree with a ComRel
> decision can appeal.

If Comrel were independently elected, then it is effectively
independent of the Council.  Sure, decisions could be appealed, but
short of overturning 100% of their decisions the Council would have no
power to change how Comrel operates.  And if we went with the appeals
policy you advocated if Council felt that not enough people were
getting kicked out it would have no ability to change that at all,
since there would be nothing to appeal.

Any body that is elected has its own mandate.  The Council has a
mandate.  The Trustees have a mandate.  That means the Council can do
something and say "screw you, this is what the devs want" to the
Trustees.  Then the Trustees can do something else and say "screw you,
this is what the Foundation members want" to the Council.  That isn't
productive.  It makes far more sense to have one version of "what the
community wants" with one definition of "the community."  I really
don't want to pattern Gentoo after the US checks-and-balances system
which tends to end up just being a lot of stalemate with every branch
basically trying to do an end-run around the intended process because
everybody has their own mandate and does not agree.

> Comrel isn't a normal project, it has the ability to significantly
> affect Gentoo as a whole.  The council has the same ability.  I see
> little wisdom in letting people join ComRel without a vetting from the
> greater community when when Council members are required to go through
> such a vetting process.

I think it makes far more sense to have Comrel vetted by the Council.
If you don't trust somebody to be wielding that power, you shouldn't
put them on the Council.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6327 bytes --]



On 10/07/2016 08:09 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2016 04:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
>>> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
>>> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
>>> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
>>> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
>>> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
>>
>> I'm not following this logic.  Are you defining independence as also
>> being equals?  The appeals courts don't manage the lower courts in the
>> same way a company manages its employees.
> 
> My understanding is that in most courts higher courts are able to
> discipline the members of lower courts.  If a lower court doesn't
> follow the precedence of a higher court, the lower court membership
> can be adjusted to one that will.  This is often the case even when
> the lower court members are elected, but election of judges tends to
> cause many problems.
> 
>> And while it may not be
>> universally true in the US, if a lower court decides someone is not
>> guilty (or a jury for that court does), then it's over.  The appeals
>> court opinion is moot.
> 
> I don't think this is true.  I believe the prosecution is allowed to
> appeal decisions.  An appeal doesn't constitute double jeopardy.  Now,
> many of these decisions are findings of fact for which appeals courts
> tend to not pay much attention, but that doesn't mean that there was
> no opportunity for appeal.

Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is
imposed after a guilty verdict.

Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals

So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
There's nothing more the US government can do.

> 
>>>
>>> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
>>> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
>>> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
>>> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
>>> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
>>> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
>>> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
>>
>> This is a good thing.  Should you really have to worry so much about
>> what you say in emails, forum posts, IRC channels, so you don't offend
>> anyone and risk them reporting you and then you getting an X duration ban?
> 
> You won't be expelled for offending somebody.  You'll be expelled for
> demonstrating a persistent inability to follow the code of conduct.
> If you're about to do something that violates the CoC, then of course
> the possibility of enforcement should give you pause.
> 
>>
>> Like it or not, there are going to be conflicting opinions and
>> discussions on those opinions will sometimes get heated and on occasion
>> complaints will be filed because emotions have taken over, but none of
>> that is justification for ComRel to intervene.
>>
> 
> Of course.  I'm not suggesting that Comrel should resolve every issue
> in an expulsion.  And if somebody feels that Comrel didn't go far
> enough I do think they should have the same right of appeal as
> somebody who feels they went to far, but that doesn't mean that the
> Council has to agree with them.
> 
>> There's nothing
>> positive of going to someone out-of-the-blue and saying "We received
>> complaints about you, we agreed with the complaints, so here's what your
>> punishment is.  Don't like it file an appeal".
> 
> In the few appeals I've seen, this was not the approach Comrel took.
> They would be overturned on appeal a lot more often if that were the
> case.
> 
>> I don't recall anyone suggesting that comrel become independent of the
>> council.  What I have seen and personally suggested was that comrel
>> membership be voted in by the full Gentoo dev community just as the
>> council is.  Everything would remain the same.  That means ComRel is
>> still overseen by the Council and anyone who doesn't agree with a ComRel
>> decision can appeal.
> 
> If Comrel were independently elected, then it is effectively
> independent of the Council.  Sure, decisions could be appealed, but
> short of overturning 100% of their decisions the Council would have no
> power to change how Comrel operates.  And if we went with the appeals
> policy you advocated if Council felt that not enough people were
> getting kicked out it would have no ability to change that at all,
> since there would be nothing to appeal.
> 
> Any body that is elected has its own mandate.  The Council has a
> mandate.  The Trustees have a mandate.  That means the Council can do
> something and say "screw you, this is what the devs want" to the
> Trustees.  Then the Trustees can do something else and say "screw you,
> this is what the Foundation members want" to the Council.  That isn't
> productive.  It makes far more sense to have one version of "what the
> community wants" with one definition of "the community."  I really
> don't want to pattern Gentoo after the US checks-and-balances system
> which tends to end up just being a lot of stalemate with every branch
> basically trying to do an end-run around the intended process because
> everybody has their own mandate and does not agree.
> 
>> Comrel isn't a normal project, it has the ability to significantly
>> affect Gentoo as a whole.  The council has the same ability.  I see
>> little wisdom in letting people join ComRel without a vetting from the
>> greater community when when Council members are required to go through
>> such a vetting process.
> 
> I think it makes far more sense to have Comrel vetted by the Council.
> If you don't trust somebody to be wielding that power, you shouldn't
> put them on the Council.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
> government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
> side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is
> imposed after a guilty verdict.
>
> Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
>
> So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
> There's nothing more the US government can do.
>

Well, the US government does lots of dumb things...  :)

However, verdicts generally aren't issued by a judge in the US.
They're usually issued by juries, and this is part of why they're not
appealable.  We don't really have juries in Gentoo.  I'm not convinced
having them would make things better.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]

On 07/10/16 16:27, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
>> government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
>> side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is
>> imposed after a guilty verdict.
>>
>> Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
>>
>> So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
>> There's nothing more the US government can do.
>>
> Well, the US government does lots of dumb things...  :)
>
> However, verdicts generally aren't issued by a judge in the US.
> They're usually issued by juries, and this is part of why they're not
> appealable.  We don't really have juries in Gentoo.  I'm not convinced
> having them would make things better.
>
Whilst I respect that Gentoo is incorporated and governed chiefly by the
laws of New Mexico, given our global appeal, we should be open to
adopting policies that reflect our international appeal and user and
membership. Not that every single countries' different legal procedures
should be debated and considered, but we can pick and choose those
elements that reflect the values of the Gentoo developers, trustees and
users, to make a representative and useful framework under which to operate.

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
>>  government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
>>  side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence 
>> that is
>>  imposed after a guilty verdict.
>> 
>>  Source: 
>> http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
>> 
>>  So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
>>  There's nothing more the US government can do.
>> 
> 
> Well, the US government does lots of dumb things...  :)
> 
> However, verdicts generally aren't issued by a judge in the US.
> They're usually issued by juries, and this is part of why they're not
> appealable.  We don't really have juries in Gentoo.  I'm not convinced
> having them would make things better.

The constitution forbids issues of fact from being appealed once made 
by juries, except "according to common law".

Issues of fact (as opposed to issues of law) in general are given great 
deference to the trial court by the appeals process.

As far as "juries", in essence comrel itself acts as a jury.
> 
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
> government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
> side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that 
> is
> imposed after a guilty verdict.
> 
> Source: 
> http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals
> 
> So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
> There's nothing more the US government can do.

This is because the government making an appeal in a criminal case is 
considered double jeopardy.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

My opinion is that comrel should be accountable to the council, but 
given the council's global burdens, I think it would suffice to have 
comrel supervised by a single person who is accountable to the council 
itself...aka, comrel's lead.

The comrel lead should be judged by how well comrel does its job.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1924 bytes --]

On 2016.10.07 02:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> NP already gave a good response but I wanted to elaborate on the
> conflict of interest topic.
> 

> In any case, anybody who is in both Comrel and Council is only on the
> Council because they were elected as such.  So, they already have the
> trust of most of the community.  I don't personally get why you'd
> trust them with the bigger decisions and not with the smaller ones as
> well, but...
> 

Well, we can vote council out if we don't like the decisions they make.
Council decisions are reached after public ML discussions and 
often, debate in #gentoo-council.

Comrel is quite different. comrel membership is by invitation, valid 
indefinitely.  Comrel membership is only approved by comrel, I think.  
I don't recall any votes on comrel membership.

Council have an annual mandate from the body of Gentoo devs. 
Devrel had a mandate from council but that's not been renewed since 
2007, unless I missed a vote somewhere.
 
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 

As you said in a later post,

On 2016.10.07 16:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip]

> I think it makes far more sense to have Comrel vetted by the Council.
> If you don't trust somebody to be wielding that power, you shouldn't
> put them on the Council.
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 

That addresses lots of concerns all in one go.

Comrel get their annual mandate. The community know that council
are peeking into comrel to see if its still alive and that its still
operating as intended.  Its more work for council to do the job 
properly.

It also means that council members would see things that they 
don't usually see unless there was an appeal.  Thus council can 
provide a general assurance to the community about all the good 
things comrel do that are currently privileged.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3282 bytes --]



On 10/06/2016 05:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> (Targeting one specific comment here)
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>>>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
>>>> trouble.
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?
>>
>> I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
>> return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
>> action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here,
>> again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has
>> been publicly posted here).
>>
>>>
>>> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
>>> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>>>
>>
>> They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs.
>>
>>>
>>> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
>>> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
>>> relevant.
>>
>> Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
>> couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what
>> happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
>> Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a
>> candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
>> Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
>> the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight
>> years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.
> 
> On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept
> secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
> about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or
> merely misunderstandings?
> 
> One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine
> Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only
> share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; for
> transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior.
> 
> I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot speak
> about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only
> view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end of it.

While it won't help with the accountability issue, I think Comrel
members should be voted on by the greater Gentoo community instead of
using the usual project membership and election rules.  As long as
Comrel has the authority it does, it makes sense to me for them to be
accountable to both the Council and the community at large.

As for accountability, I think the statistics suggestion made earlier in
this conversation is a great idea.  Unfortunately, anything beyond that
will require a relaxing some of Comrel's rules with regards to privacy.
I'm not against such an idea, but I can see it as being a more difficult
thing to get consensus on.

Thanks,
Nicholas Vinson


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

On 10/01/2016 05:53 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2016, 10:20:22 schrieb Daniel Campbell:
> 
>> That's a good point. Personalities, situations, and even the given goals
>> of a group can change over the course of time. There's a certain point
>> imo where it does no good to hold grudges and it's healthier to start over.
> 
> 
> The misconception here is that last year's events have been influenced by "old 
> grudges". 
> 
> Hey, nobody cares about 2007 anymore. (Except William.)
> 
> His recent output is quite sufficient to come to a decision. 
> 
> 
To be fair, my "misconception" is the absence of conception in the first
place, as I'm not familiar with the situation. The grudge mention was
just an example pulled from nowhere; if it was relevant to what actually
transpired then it's by accident. I just don't want to see Gentoo suffer
-- especially in problematic areas -- due to old social problems.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1751 bytes --]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:53:08 PM EDT Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2016, 10:20:22 schrieb Daniel Campbell:
> > That's a good point. Personalities, situations, and even the given goals
> > of a group can change over the course of time. There's a certain point
> > imo where it does no good to hold grudges and it's healthier to start
> > over.
> 
> The misconception here is that last year's events have been influenced by
> "old grudges".
> 
> Hey, nobody cares about 2007 anymore. (Except William.)

You can read about most the events between 2008 and 2015 on my bug. The past 
did come up. As it did again in 2015.

> His recent output is quite sufficient to come to a decision.

This is after I had been contributing and working well for a few months. Any 
situation was once again cause by comrel dredging up the past. Here is factual 
proof!

[16:00:06] <jlec> wltjr: hi
[16:00:22] <jlec> wltjr: we have a slight problem.
[16:00:45] <jlec> it seems you have a track record in gentoo which I was not 
aware of.
[16:01:52] <jlec> The other comrel members demanded some contributions from 
your side to judge how you are working in a team these days
[16:03:18] <jlec> "I would like to keep the review limited to 1 maybe 2 hours 
max" is something which shouldn't be in there. It is not up to you to decide 
when we are finished.
[16:03:18] <jlec> But as you have lots of knowledge I am sure we won't have 
long sessions
[16:04:33] <jlec> wltjr: So I would like to ask to do contributions via the 
rsync2git or proxy-maint project and get involved in gentoo via bgo, irc and 
overlays so that the team gets confident in your returning.

https://135927.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=397252


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5190 bytes --]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 11:22:45 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
[...]
> > His recent output is quite sufficient to come to a decision.
> 
> This is after I had been contributing and working well for a few months. Any 
> situation was once again cause by comrel dredging up the past. Here is factual 
> proof!

William, when you just started your thread, I read through your dev
bug and I decided to keep quiet of what I saw there because this is
a matter of the past. But since you brought yourself the very issue
that caught my attention, I can't be quiet any longer.

> [16:00:06] <jlec> wltjr: hi
> [16:00:22] <jlec> wltjr: we have a slight problem.
> [16:00:45] <jlec> it seems you have a track record in gentoo which I was not 
> aware of.
> [16:01:52] <jlec> The other comrel members demanded some contributions from 
> your side to judge how you are working in a team these days
> [16:03:18] <jlec> "I would like to keep the review limited to 1 maybe 2 hours 
> max" is something which shouldn't be in there. It is not up to you to decide 
> when we are finished.
> [16:03:18] <jlec> But as you have lots of knowledge I am sure we won't have 
> long sessions
> [16:04:33] <jlec> wltjr: So I would like to ask to do contributions via the 
> rsync2git or proxy-maint project and get involved in gentoo via bgo, irc and 
> overlays so that the team gets confident in your returning.
>
> https://135927.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=397252

Just let's be honest and cite another snippet of the very same file:

TR;DR: you made a personal abuse on a recruiter trying to help you.

[16:06:07] <wltjr> jlec: you can ask java team members... I have been porting java-config to C from python....
[16:06:17] <wltjr> jlec: what more work do you want to see?
[16:06:22] <jlec> wltjr: I think the social part is more important.
[16:06:32] <wltjr> jlec: I have submitted ebuilds in bugzilla, I pointed out one
[16:06:45] <wltjr> jlec: again go into #gentoo-java and talk to those I work with if you want to know
[16:06:57] <wltjr> jlec: if you want to bring up social bs, then your not actually concerned with technical contributions and the rest
[16:07:13] <wltjr> jlec: and again my track record speaks for itself, I got gentoo a bank account, redid by laws, and got it legal again
[16:07:24] <wltjr> jlec: no one else in gentoo has done that, and since then the foundation has fallen aside
[16:07:37] <wltjr> jlec: so ask yourself, do you want packages in portage updated no one has in 8 years?
[16:07:51] <wltjr> things like servletapi still remain, despite my efforst to remove in 2008...
[16:08:10] <wltjr> fine by me if gentoo does not have tomcat 8 or ipv6 support qmail, all other distros do....
[16:08:56] <jlec> All that can be contributed by rsync2git and proxy-maint project
[16:09:15] <wltjr> jlec: I got grief last time from those in devrel and I had comments about devrel going away, and where is devrel now gone, merged into comrel with userel....
[16:09:23] <jlec> Of course we like to see your contributions, but technical aspect aren't everything
[16:09:27] <wltjr> jlec: ok never mind, thanks for being the same as others
[16:09:34] <wltjr> jlec: bye
[16:10:56] <jlec> wltjr: that behaviour you are showing right now is on spot with the concerns of the team. You should start prooving the oposite.
[16:12:38] <wltjr> jlec: dude I care less you have things so twisted
[16:12:50] <wltjr> how has anyone been helpful? why should I be any different
[16:13:11] <wltjr> am I being shown respect? thanks for contributions? or willingness to do what others have not in 7+ years
[16:13:25] <wltjr> jlec: are you trying to improve gentoo or not? for real, this social crap is BS
[16:13:43] <wltjr> jlec: I have gotten that same crap for many years now, and you expect me to be any differnet?
[16:14:04] <wltjr> jlec: you cannot bring up a single technical issue with my work then and now, if all you have to go in is social then....
[16:14:14] <wltjr> jlec: but specifically what have I done bad socially recently tell me?
[16:14:14] <jlec> wltjr: exactly that. Be different.
[16:14:38] <jlec> wltjr: you told me how much disrepect other adn
[16:14:43] <wltjr> jlec: good luck with gentoo, gentoo needs to BE DIFFERENT
[16:14:51] <jlec> then tell me I am just like them
[16:14:53] <wltjr> jlec: fyi you have stupid questions on the quiz
[16:14:59] <jlec> that's a personal attack
[16:15:04] <wltjr> 21 on the end of ebuild quiz is stupid
[16:15:19] <jlec> let me see

As I see it from the log above, jlec was nice to you and tried to
help you to return: recommended you to contribute via other means
for a while until devs will be confident that you are nice to
others. And you abused him right away :(

This caught my attention because jlec was my recruiter as well and
I well remember how tactful, helpful and nice he was at this job.
And abusing him was rather unfair.

I hope that you changed since that conversation, but IMHO you
should prove that for community. The simplest way is to work on 
technical stuff and doesn't engage in everything else for a while.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2766 bytes --]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:33:27 AM EDT Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> As I see it from the log above, jlec was nice to you and tried to
> help you to return: recommended you to contribute via other means
> for a while until devs will be confident that you are nice to
> others. And you abused him right away :(

I  was being asking for what I had already done. If anyone had taken any time 
to talk to my mentor, or look at commits( git shortlog -sn | grep wlt ), or 
PRs, or bugs, or documentation. It would be easy to see what they were asking. 
I had been working as I have off and on over the years. But considerably since 
2015.

They were abusing me. They were wanting to see more of what already existed. 
Given what all I had done, and their further request. It seemed no amount 
would suffice. Given I was already more active than some members of comrel with 
regard to commits in tree....

Also it was NOT jlec requesting that if you see the log. He did that because 
others MADE him. Jlec was about to schedule a time to do quiz review when 
others brought up the past and put the requirement of "show me the work". 
Which the work already existed...

If you take my overlay into account, considerable work that there was not 
anyone to proxy or commit to tree...

> This caught my attention because jlec was my recruiter as well and
> I well remember how tactful, helpful and nice he was at this job.
> And abusing him was rather unfair.

I have already emailed him personally and there was never any issues. What you 
saw was ~7yrs of frustration. I was really close to returning, quiz review 
with Jlec. Then others got involved and mess that all up.

Since his name was coming up. I took the time to email him personally and let 
him know it was nothing personal to him. He was short on time, but his initial 
response seemed as if he understood that.

There is no issue between jlec and myself then or now. Jlec has thick skin and 
it was others causing the problems. He just got caught up in all that and I 
have apologized to him directly.

> I hope that you changed since that conversation, but IMHO you
> should prove that for community. The simplest way is to work on
> technical stuff and doesn't engage in everything else for a while.

Not really. If you are not seeking to help out, and get in the way of work 
being done and progress. Then no I will not have changed and just get worse.

These problems are big, serious, and getting worse daily. Gentoo can survive 
without Java per se. Gentoo cannot survive things like the IRS.... Not without 
major controversy.

I can only imagine others that might have been driven away and other areas 
Gentoo maybe suffering in, As a whole none is good for the project.


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

Hi,

try to turn over a new leaf, leave all grudges in the past.

For now try to concentrate on technical aspects only: submit
patches or pull requests, start moving your overlay to the tree —
java team should be happy to assist you.

It would be a good idea to stay away from policies, team management
and similar stuff, at least for the time being. Try to avoid
comments (on bugzilla, irc and other channels) that may be found
offensive by other people as well as too long and emotional
comments on how unjustly was the past, just let it go.

I hope everything will be fine this way, just be calm and patient.

As for comrel and recruiters: while nobody is perfect, I don't see
critical issues in their workflow: they are doing a great job, as
well as Council.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 11:11:40 AM EDT Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> For now try to concentrate on technical aspects only: submit
> patches or pull requests, start moving your overlay to the tree —
> java team should be happy to assist you.

There is no Java Team! There are not really any active Java Devs. 

Thankfully a few have been active (chewi, monsieurp, and fordfrog). Chewi is 
moving on, mosieurp and fordfrog are busy over long periods of time. They do 
their parts as they can. One cannot really ask more of them.

How can one contribute when there is no one to commit the work or work with?

Who is going to review and commit work in an area of the tree they are not 
familiar with or understand?

There is a 3rd quiz for the Java area of the tree. Which I helped make....

Many just simply do not understand the problem, scope, amount of work, or time 
frame. Much of it has been this way since 2008-2010.  There has been some new 
devs, some efforts over the years but mostly has fallen behind big time.

Re-read the post from James Le Cuirt/Chewi. Stop by #gentoo-java, see what is 
going on. Follow the mailing list, or commits in dev-java. Follow my open PRs, 
see how long they take to get committed. Now multiply that by hundreds of 
packages, more eclass changes, removals, etc.

There is a considerable amount of ongoing Java Development in the world. The 
less that goes on regarding Java on Gentoo. The more Gentoo falls behind at 
least in that one area.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 29. September 2016, 22:04:56 schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> 
> For a brief recap;
> 

[snip]

William, 

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43

my opinion on this still stands and is documented at the link above.

As also documented there, if you disagree you can request a full comrel team 
vote. 

If the result still doesn't make you happy you can afterwards appeal to the 
council (and as per our rules I then won't be involved in the appeal 
proceedings).

So far you didn't start any of this, instead just going off into rants. Thus I 
think there's not really anything to discuss about.

Cheers, 
Andreas

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=jPWS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4863 bytes --]

I forgot a few things with my original post. There is a public bug open from 
2008 on the action. There was no bug open in 2015 when I was silenced on 
#comrel IRC channel, after being accused of spamming the channel. Nor any bug 
about my denial of return beyond the comment on the bug. Some things were done 
a bit better in 2008 than 2015, but neither should have ever occurred.

Reading this will shed allot of light on the past
devrel bug to moderate me on -nfp
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479

There is a personal back story here, as I had stayed a single night with Chris 
Gianelloni and Chrissy Fullham (before marriage). Back in 2007 when we all 
attended Linux world. Having met the prior year, 2006 at Linux World. Both 
also came to my mothers house in Northern California back in 2007. Where would 
stay when I was in Northern California.

Chrissy was constantly sending me private messages in IRC about foundation 
matters. Most of which I rather address in public not private. Which is the 
harassing I referred to. She had allot of issues with the things I was doing 
on the foundation side. I mentioned several places she was a major factor for 
me resigning as a trustee. But of course Chrissy was part of devrel in 2008.

Chrissy questioning the change in By Laws that said you cannot be on 
Foundation and Council was because Chris (her bf and later husband ) was both 
in the past, a Trustee and on Council. I did not create the provision over 
Chris, I never had issues. It was just for clean separation of powers and not 
neglecting duties from wearing to many hats.
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
a3f9cc7d3d7d4be99202353a2950f0ce

Several of the others involved at the time did live within the Bay Area of 
Chris and Chrissy and would gather for drinks weekly. I am not sure if that 
included Alec or not but he worked for Google and was local to them. There was 
some what of a "clique" then. But I had no issues with them as a whole but 
they did with me. All have moved on from Gentoo but the mess remains....

A SINGLE user Alec Warner (antarus) not Chrissy complained to devrel.
Which Chrissy (musikc) was a member of, and received the complaint...
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c6

I can't recall if Alec was a member but later he said he should have emailed 
me first.  Also when it spiraled out of control onto -core later, he expressed 
regret for starting the whole mess. But once you push the ball down the hill, 
it is hard to stop it rolling over things...
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c16

The only "official warning"  was in public by Chrissy... The person who was on 
the receiving end of my "unruly CoC violating behavior" . Which in of itself 
was hardly that bad.

100% of the issues were public on the -nfp list. Thus they requesting 
moderation... I was not out of control anywhere else, IRC, other mailing 
lists, etc or they would have requested moderation from that.

You can see per comments on the bug I found out about the ban/moderation via 
the bug, monitoring bugzilla....
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c17

My problems have always been when I interact with members of the relations 
projects. I never have issues with developers or other projects. I do not 
think it is right for people in comrel to be part of the dispute with someone. 
It is not objective, they are bias...

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:04:56 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> This has been a long time coming. I have purposely held back such a post for
> many years. I have not been on any Gentoo related mailing list since 2008.
> Not to dredge up the past which has some what haunted me and plagued my
> efforts to return on numerous occasions over many years.
> 
> For a brief recap;
> 
> In 2008 days after stepping down as a Gentoo Foundation Trustee, due to
> harassment[1] 8/27/08. I made a post on the Gentoo -nfp mailing list and got
> a bit unruly[2] 9/2/08. Which lead to a single developer complaining to
> devrel at the time. I was banned from posting to the -nfp list, and I
> circumvented that ban with a single post[3] 9/2/08. Which about a week
> later lead devrel to decide to suspend me as a developer, prevent commits
> for a 1 week period of time[4]. I saw such as unproductive, penalization,
> and insulting given what had taken place with me stepping down as a Trustee
> and no respect for any efforts. I elected to resign against the advice of
> some saying remain.
> 

> 1.
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
dc2f34046910b10e6ddcb8304410046b 
> 2.
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
abfb3ade0108d4452dde85bf491827b9 
> 3.
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
7ef33e6807214587fdb825bebe590887
> 4. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c5


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Aaron Bauman]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:30:20 AM JST, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I forgot a few things with my original post. There is a public 
> bug open from 
> 2008 on the action. There was no bug open in 2015 when I was silenced on 
> #comrel IRC channel, after being accused of spamming the 
> channel. Nor any bug 
> about my denial of return beyond the comment on the bug. Some 
> things were done 
> a bit better in 2008 than 2015, but neither should have ever occurred.
>
> Reading this will shed allot of light on the past
> devrel bug to moderate me on -nfp
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479
>
> There is a personal back story here, as I had stayed a single 
> night with Chris 
> Gianelloni and Chrissy Fullham (before marriage). Back in 2007 when we all 
> attended Linux world. Having met the prior year, 2006 at Linux World. Both 
> also came to my mothers house in Northern California back in 
> 2007. Where would 
> stay when I was in Northern California.
>
> Chrissy was constantly sending me private messages in IRC about foundation 
> matters. Most of which I rather address in public not private. Which is the 
> harassing I referred to. She had allot of issues with the 
> things I was doing 
> on the foundation side. I mentioned several places she was a 
> major factor for 
> me resigning as a trustee. But of course Chrissy was part of devrel in 2008.
>
> Chrissy questioning the change in By Laws that said you cannot be on 
> Foundation and Council was because Chris (her bf and later 
> husband ) was both 
> in the past, a Trustee and on Council. I did not create the provision over 
> Chris, I never had issues. It was just for clean separation of 
> powers and not 
> neglecting duties from wearing to many hats.
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> a3f9cc7d3d7d4be99202353a2950f0ce
>
> Several of the others involved at the time did live within the Bay Area of 
> Chris and Chrissy and would gather for drinks weekly. I am not sure if that 
> included Alec or not but he worked for Google and was local to 
> them. There was 
> some what of a "clique" then. But I had no issues with them as a whole but 
> they did with me. All have moved on from Gentoo but the mess remains....
>
> A SINGLE user Alec Warner (antarus) not Chrissy complained to devrel.
> Which Chrissy (musikc) was a member of, and received the complaint...
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c6
>
> I can't recall if Alec was a member but later he said he should 
> have emailed 
> me first.  Also when it spiraled out of control onto -core 
> later, he expressed 
> regret for starting the whole mess. But once you push the ball 
> down the hill, 
> it is hard to stop it rolling over things...
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c16
>
> The only "official warning"  was in public by Chrissy... The 
> person who was on 
> the receiving end of my "unruly CoC violating behavior" . Which 
> in of itself 
> was hardly that bad.
>
> 100% of the issues were public on the -nfp list. Thus they requesting 
> moderation... I was not out of control anywhere else, IRC, other mailing 
> lists, etc or they would have requested moderation from that.
>
> You can see per comments on the bug I found out about the 
> ban/moderation via 
> the bug, monitoring bugzilla....
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c17
>
> My problems have always been when I interact with members of the relations 
> projects. I never have issues with developers or other projects. I do not 
> think it is right for people in comrel to be part of the 
> dispute with someone. 
> It is not objective, they are bias...
>
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:04:56 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> This has been a long time coming. I have purposely held back 
>> such a post for
>> many years. I have not been on any Gentoo related mailing list since 2008.
>> Not to dredge up the past which has some what haunted me and plagued my
>> efforts to return on numerous occasions over many years.
>> 
>> For a brief recap; ...
>
>> 1.
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> dc2f34046910b10e6ddcb8304410046b 
>> 2.
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> abfb3ade0108d4452dde85bf491827b9 
>> 3.
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
> 7ef33e6807214587fdb825bebe590887
>> 4. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c5
>
>

You sure do spend a lot of time justifying history for someone who "doesn't 
need Gentoo," but we need you, apparently?

File the damned appeal against Andreas' decision to not allow you through 
the rest of the developer recruitment process.  If not, go find something 
else to do with your time, but quit wasting ours with long back stories 
about social problems.  You are apparently not socially capable or have 
severe problems interacting with others.  That is up to you to decide.

As NP stated in a previous post this is not a dictatorship... so quit 
acting like it is.  The same things you complain about not getting done 
will when the right people come along so don't act like you are a gift to 
Gentoo. No one is. 

-Aaron

Re: [gentoo-project] Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Raymond Jennings]

Arron has a point, even if I disagree with how it was presented.

William, if you're going to use this list to "file a bug report" 
against "the system", you should at least include reproduction steps 
and/or what you've tried so far.

Did you talk to comrel and not get an answer?  That is relevant.

Did you appeal and get shot down with no explanation?  That is relevant.

Is the appeals process not properly documented?  That is relevant.

Are you unable to find out what exactly you should be appealing?  That 
is relevant.

(Btw, if any of the above are true, its a fault with "the process" not 
working as it ought to.)

Consider aaron's instructions as "please try this new alpha version 
with a fresh patch, see if it works as its supposed to", run the test, 
and report back to us if things still don't go as expected.  Treat this 
as you being a user being asked by a developer to test a new patch.  If 
"we", the "powers that be", can't see that you've tried our suggestions 
and failed, we can't be sure you're taking your developership 
seriously, and more to the point, we won't have the evidence we need to 
determine what needs fixed.  Go through the motions, it's probably the 
best way to prove that there's a problem.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:30:20 AM JST, William L. Thomson Jr. 
> wrote:
>> I forgot a few things with my original post. There is a public bug 
>> open from 2008 on the action. There was no bug open in 2015 when I 
>> was silenced on #comrel IRC channel, after being accused of spamming 
>> the channel. Nor any bug about my denial of return beyond the 
>> comment on the bug. Some things were done a bit better in 2008 than 
>> 2015, but neither should have ever occurred.
>> 
>> Reading this will shed allot of light on the past
>> devrel bug to moderate me on -nfp
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479
>> 
>> There is a personal back story here, as I had stayed a single night 
>> with Chris Gianelloni and Chrissy Fullham (before marriage). Back in 
>> 2007 when we all attended Linux world. Having met the prior year, 
>> 2006 at Linux World. Both also came to my mothers house in Northern 
>> California back in 2007. Where would stay when I was in Northern 
>> California.
>> 
>> Chrissy was constantly sending me private messages in IRC about 
>> foundation matters. Most of which I rather address in public not 
>> private. Which is the harassing I referred to. She had allot of 
>> issues with the things I was doing on the foundation side. I 
>> mentioned several places she was a major factor for me resigning as 
>> a trustee. But of course Chrissy was part of devrel in 2008.
>> 
>> Chrissy questioning the change in By Laws that said you cannot be on 
>> Foundation and Council was because Chris (her bf and later husband ) 
>> was both in the past, a Trustee and on Council. I did not create the 
>> provision over Chris, I never had issues. It was just for clean 
>> separation of powers and not neglecting duties from wearing to many 
>> hats.
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
>> a3f9cc7d3d7d4be99202353a2950f0ce
>> 
>> Several of the others involved at the time did live within the Bay 
>> Area of Chris and Chrissy and would gather for drinks weekly. I am 
>> not sure if that included Alec or not but he worked for Google and 
>> was local to them. There was some what of a "clique" then. But I had 
>> no issues with them as a whole but they did with me. All have moved 
>> on from Gentoo but the mess remains....
>> 
>> A SINGLE user Alec Warner (antarus) not Chrissy complained to devrel.
>> Which Chrissy (musikc) was a member of, and received the complaint...
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c6
>> 
>> I can't recall if Alec was a member but later he said he should have 
>> emailed me first.  Also when it spiraled out of control onto -core 
>> later, he expressed regret for starting the whole mess. But once you 
>> push the ball down the hill, it is hard to stop it rolling over 
>> things...
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c16
>> 
>> The only "official warning"  was in public by Chrissy... The person 
>> who was on the receiving end of my "unruly CoC violating behavior" . 
>> Which in of itself was hardly that bad.
>> 
>> 100% of the issues were public on the -nfp list. Thus they 
>> requesting moderation... I was not out of control anywhere else, 
>> IRC, other mailing lists, etc or they would have requested 
>> moderation from that.
>> 
>> You can see per comments on the bug I found out about the 
>> ban/moderation via the bug, monitoring bugzilla....
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c17
>> 
>> My problems have always been when I interact with members of the 
>> relations projects. I never have issues with developers or other 
>> projects. I do not think it is right for people in comrel to be part 
>> of the dispute with someone. It is not objective, they are bias...
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:04:56 PM EDT William L. Thomson 
>> Jr. wrote:
>>> This has been a long time coming. I have purposely held back such a 
>>> post for
>>> many years. I have not been on any Gentoo related mailing list 
>>> since 2008.
>>> Not to dredge up the past which has some what haunted me and 
>>> plagued my
>>> efforts to return on numerous occasions over many years.
>>> 
>>> For a brief recap; ...
>> 
>>> 1.
>>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
>> dc2f34046910b10e6ddcb8304410046b
>>> 2.
>>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
>> abfb3ade0108d4452dde85bf491827b9
>>> 3.
>>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/
>> 7ef33e6807214587fdb825bebe590887
>>> 4. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c5
>> 
>> 
> 
> You sure do spend a lot of time justifying history for someone who 
> "doesn't need Gentoo," but we need you, apparently?
> 
> File the damned appeal against Andreas' decision to not allow you 
> through the rest of the developer recruitment process.  If not, go 
> find something else to do with your time, but quit wasting ours with 
> long back stories about social problems.  You are apparently not 
> socially capable or have severe problems interacting with others.  
> That is up to you to decide.

You may be frustrated, but personally I don't think this sort of 
behavior is appropriate.  If he's engaging in misconduct or 
inappropriate behavior, a polite guidance (like I'm doing with you in 
this paragraph) or a referral to comrel would be better.  Angrily 
biting back at him is counter productive in my opinion.  If you feel 
the need to bring down a hammer on him you should probably let comrel 
do it instead...or whoever happens to be in charge of this mailing list.

> As NP stated in a previous post this is not a dictatorship... so quit 
> acting like it is.  The same things you complain about not getting 
> done will when the right people come along so don't act like you are 
> a gift to Gentoo. No one is.

Actually, *every* developer or staff member or trustee who volunteers 
their unpaid time to support Gentoo is a gift.

I am a small gift to gentoo because of the bugs I've reported and the 
packages I presently maintain.  There may well be others who are bigger 
or smaller gifts depending on their contributions...especially if 
they're doing it on a volunteer basis and not as a paid position.

> -Aaron
>