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

[Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>]

> On Sep 21, 2019, at 5:55 AM, James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:01:54 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, everyone.
>> 
>> Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure
>> for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to our
>> wiki page.
>> 
>> TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution (or
>> post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance,
>> and Council being the second.
>> 
>> 
>> Full proposed policy, with rationale:
>> 
>> 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel.
>> The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council.
>> 
>> R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable to
>> make it the first appeal instance.
>> 
>> 
>> 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month before
>> planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third-
>> mail).
>> 
>> R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would
>> not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity).  Undertakers
>> recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to
>> confirm that someone's retirement is still pending.
>> 
>> 
>> 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. 
>> If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired
>> throughout the appeal process.  The appeal process is finished if
>> either:
>> 
>>  a. the Council issues final decision,
>> 
>>  b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days,
>> 
>>  c. both sides agree not to appeal further.
>> 
>> R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring
>> (then maybe retiring again).
>> 
>> 
>> 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between
>> Undertakers and developers.  It is not a replacement for communicating
>> with Undertakers.
>> 
>> R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to
>> resolve it between us.  For example, if we missed something, then you
>> should tell us rather than calling for appeal.  However, if we do
>> disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is
>> something you can appeal.
>> 
>> 
>> 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on existing
>> policies.  While it may influence future policies, those need to be
>> carried out via appropriate policy making channels.
>> 
>> R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently.  If a policy
>> needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review.
>> 
>> 
>> WDYT?
> 
> Thanks for noticing this gap and addressing it. Given recent events
> though, we must also review the wording used in regular undertaker
> correspondence and also the process, if necessary, to avoid things
> getting to this point in the first place.
I agree. Putting a process into place to provide order to things is a definite improvement. I am happy to see things moving in a constructive direction.

That said, I want to point out that our ability to move in a constructive direction after discussion is praiseworthy. I have recently had exposure to certain other areas of the OSS community where disagreements are not handled well. I find our approach to things to be a breath of fresh air in comparison. I will refrain from naming projects, but to avoid causing misconceptions, I will say that I am not referring to any projects where I currently have more than 3 commits.
> 
> -- 
> James Le Cuirot (chewi)
> Gentoo Linux Developer