From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97E2F138350 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 651DFE0903; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB73E08FE for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (c142-245.icpnet.pl [85.221.142.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75BCF34EF89; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <7c54caacaed187e36b3302ccc7d8d4c435247d24.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: comrel changes From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:19:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20200217161812.GA5969@linux1.home> <441737a3d1c0efdfc9f95b1cb1fde47b0f55d58f.camel@gentoo.org> <126ac095ce1f3cd3fd75c4ad977d9ed1e08123df.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0aLvipVZWZzCBeqv323J" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: a47b2fc6-8c7d-4fa1-8c3a-a3585a728c93 X-Archives-Hash: 008977b8dfeeaaac167855c56bb4a2b8 --=-0aLvipVZWZzCBeqv323J Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 11:08 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > On 24.02.2020 10:47, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-02-22 at 22:35 -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:39 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > >=20 > > > > On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: > > > > > This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo counci= l. > > > > > Unless, that is, council have no oversight of comrel? > > > > No, that's not how things work. You don't have an appeal body > > > > proactively look into what all projects are doing. > > > >=20 > > > I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a report[0],= and > > > the Council[1] reviews it. > > I thought we've already established that the reports are meaningless. > >=20 > > The way I see it, your system basically means that, repeatedly: > >=20 > > 1. ComRel does their job. > >=20 > > 2. ComRel wastes their time publishing a meaningless report. > >=20 > > 3. Since the report is meaningless, Council has to audit ComRel's work. > >=20 > > Since digging for past data is usually more effort than processing it > > as it flows, Council may as well start proactively auditing everything.= =20 > > Except that's not its purpose, and I don't see why we should throw > > random extra tasks on their plate just because. > >=20 > > In my opinion, if we are to go for auditing ComRel, we should select > > a separate group of people for that, people that choose to put their > > effort into auditing rather than incidentally get dragged into it. > > Furthermore, I believe this group should not have any direct deciding > > power. Instead, they should bring any issues their find to ComRel's > > attention and/or appeal them to the Council. > >=20 >=20 > This is meaningless also, because an individual who finds ComRel > decision unacceptable can appeal to Council directly, you do not need > third party layer here. The individual can only judge the reply to his own request. He lacks the wider context to audit the process and decisions (or lack of them) wrt multiple different requests. This works both ways. People are also making accusations and claim about ComRel based on what they guess might be happening. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-0aLvipVZWZzCBeqv323J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl5Thw5fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA7Y8wgAw3tclpvpS5BdSRdsF2ruOXETYthYxxEr0YUtTlEsmOsf9KplreHZv29J /+KwRejnaJOjzon8oy4jaSp8ZzgHQNW2VL1PAOwMpDo61V6m+puiK0/U36a2o8tk NYMXIbM+my1shIEuJ20BKRZy64L0t1zPfUudr9zQxA7dQ6F4LZQCGxsEIaWRIDn1 oJJBdpFvGx4Qc7n+ZOQetsSDg1WDVnCQ86J+3dSK3H5vCXFOnOaV+MvhJ2WGKLfn tzRMXmhOSI6acgcaTeqa7xfoJVNRbIUj5YO9TkZliD/256+JiL+2A8xuu4MGTgss MFe+uI+hOp8tf8LDy2DsMr1zxu/2jw== =mpou -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0aLvipVZWZzCBeqv323J--