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 5F03B1382C5 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73FB9E0AE3; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (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 35F54E0A7E for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id w201so11025785vkw.0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:21:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=9fGCPY2zyDRUKBH+yQxS72xwmp96g9HdLnB5Ufi8X+A=; b=UoOjl+sTJQVciNDSjEKQo4zReGhlV5lM9N4e/AgM/MOqJmrElS/OQd6zIChDlqOFwL yrh8vQSnTmhfWCzLfQogGLQCN+lO86FC38VAJ9tcrdLC8W+Et5N4ZqPADe9Z0hzfjzZJ PEvRCGFP/Vcdfn7bXh50b9daH30bIV3bskOjcPcmMQHZ0rYiBMhoNEjl4nY+nJGitKVb q78Mgt9ObZ0NZau+qb9npVYWVV8QiXZTHMfK6dTPYeH3cD9CjBimT44U+kf7qnn7rWml MzUbbCNWeHUqsCllAiQUhvkG/8KhDcfwW/NlbNkg0qkqhmLOP3TUlXjQPyIP7yFryGqh cRlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=9fGCPY2zyDRUKBH+yQxS72xwmp96g9HdLnB5Ufi8X+A=; b=CwaqZVH77pR8kzdbY7R3RiGs8+wyNNoooVlDBIWm76DakZCukjqExT6vS32vwe1l7r +zzyD0DWOmiAqSq2d0DPMDfI18WHiYBaOCUEVG+/Os9eTQo/NG5XSEd98GmpgcbzJniN gWk+sQE3osPOXHTnBfuBAqgfeTqsHswOfozuBRv93NC3tVMr0C+dgyisZl4qxbDWru+p yvpuUSKiuAI5A66k061jGmMT0Q12pUfdlgP7Nd64VywdZZFbStjZwzLcY66Pcm1FPGfK 6kTsnvW0KtcreJZ1McV+F6rMPPmrHwRz/gtmlbzrpOdwJKOwPnjcni+3Np7UIaeo8eBE xbgw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAtsMxsMkca8IvhqRhLZjvqDijGs+aowmugkdUs6hge6jPjQCkW TP6fQkMkaRPLZH8WTxLNeU+KOgG3lbPrKN4cFQ9GUcvE X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224XS7aqm6uv7QdwJvR3DYemGms8vzQgZbnp2FR60Y3Hihzf/j2DZH9a2hAsEUJa5Zgl2+XCWXNhqIiWp/8XrDY= X-Received: by 10.31.52.12 with SMTP id b12mr1416717vka.178.1518535266886; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:21:06 -0800 (PST) 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.176.37.10 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 07:21:06 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [98.116.189.160] In-Reply-To: References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212165506.GA23201@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <1f63e6de-999d-e0cd-990b-8813293357d6@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:21:06 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CQ-zsW9W7azJea5BK3cPa84c0uk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143fa402982e50565198b6f" X-Archives-Salt: 19845e7a-e17c-4059-b435-603515a6ff3a X-Archives-Hash: e23b936053d3411313984ce0f285d97b --001a1143fa402982e50565198b6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > In some fields (law, or finance for example) there are rules against > having > > even potential conflicts. Should Gentoo emulate those rules and produce > an > > organization that avoids even the appearance of conflict? > > Absolutely! > > > A council member is on a team (not even necessarily QA / Comrel). That > > team's lead makes a decision. The council member doesn't agree with the > > decision and appeals to council. > > I would argue the member raising the issue has a conflict and they should > > not vote (recuse / abstain). > > Merely disagreeing with a decision is not a conflict of interest on its > own. > > A conflict exists when somebody stands to personally benefit from a > decision. What personal benefit does a member of a team get from > appealing a disagreement? > Now, if the decision concerned them personally in some way I could see > a conflict, such as if it were about a reimbursement of an expense > they incurred, or if it were about sponsoring them to go on a trip. > I wouldn't even consider it a conflict of interest if it were a QA > decision on a commit they made, unless this commit furthered some kind > of work they were doing outside of Gentoo (the commit benefited their > employer or their consulting business). > > Conflict of interest isn't the same as disagreement. It is completely > normal and healthy for people to disagree with things. This does not > in any way make them prejudiced or likely to make a decision that is > bad for the distro. > > Again, I'm completely in favor of avoiding conflicts of interest. It > just seems that there is a popular notion around here of what a > conflict of interest is which certainly wouldn't stand up in a court > of law, or really in any organization. Perhaps this is why so many > seem to be paranoid that there is some kind of cabal running the show. > (One which is elected, so presumably this cabal is upwards of 30+ > people.) > Ok I don't want to have a discussion about what is a conflict or not; because I don't think the conversation solves the problems (which are ill-specified, hoping William will use more words.) The original post discussed appeals to the council. My understanding is that there is a potential trust issue and William thinks removing 'conflicts' (and I use the loosest definition of conflict here) will help improve trust. Assuming developers have concerns about 'conflicts', having a conversation where you say their concerns are invalid based on 'an interpretation of the phrase conflict of interest' doesn't really address these developer concerns (and in fact does the opposite.) So I'd like to see the developer concerns expressed in a clearer way so we can have a frank discussion. If there are no explicit concerns and we are just discussing potential problems; then I'm less likely to advocate for policy changes based on things that have not happened yet. -A > > -- > Rich > > --001a1143fa402982e50565198b6f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> = wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2= 018 at 12:51 AM, Alec Warner <anta= rus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> In some fields (law, or finance for example) there are rules against h= aving
> even potential conflicts. Should Gentoo emulate those rules and produc= e an
> organization that avoids even the appearance of conflict?

Absolutely!

> A council member is on a team (not even necessarily QA / Comrel). That=
> team's lead makes a decision. The council member doesn't agree= with the
> decision and appeals to council.
> I would argue the member raising the issue has a conflict and they sho= uld
> not vote (recuse / abstain).

Merely disagreeing with a decision is not a conflict of interest on = its own.

A conflict exists when somebody stands to personally benefit from a
decision.=C2=A0 What personal benefit does a member of a team get from
appealing a disagreement?
=C2=A0=

Now, if the decision concerned them personally in some way I could see
a conflict, such as if it were about a reimbursement of an expense
they incurred, or if it were about sponsoring them to go on a trip.
I wouldn't even consider it a c= onflict of interest if it were a QA
decision on a commit they made, unless this commit furthered some kind
of work they were doing outside of Gentoo (the commit benefited their
employer or their consulting business).

Conflict of interest isn't the same as disagreement.=C2=A0 It is comple= tely
normal and healthy for people to disagree with things.=C2=A0 This does not<= br> in any way make them prejudiced or likely to make a decision that is
bad for the distro.

Again, I'm completely in favor of avoiding conflicts of interest.=C2=A0= It
just seems that there is a popular notion around here of what a
conflict of interest is which certainly wouldn't stand up in a court of law, or really in any organization.=C2=A0 Perhaps this is why so many seem to be paranoid that there is some kind of cabal running the show.
(One which is elected, so presumably this cabal is upwards of 30+
people.)

Ok I don't want to have a = discussion about what is a conflict or not; because I don't think the c= onversation solves the problems (which are ill-specified, hoping William wi= ll use more words.) The original post discussed appeals to the council. My = understanding is that there is a potential trust issue and William thinks r= emoving 'conflicts' (and I use the loosest definition of conflict h= ere) will help improve trust. Assuming developers have concerns about '= conflicts', having a conversation where you say their concerns are inva= lid based on 'an interpretation of the phrase conflict of interest'= doesn't really address these developer concerns (and in fact does the = opposite.)

So I'd like to see the developer co= ncerns expressed in a clearer way so we can have a frank discussion. If the= re are no explicit concerns and we are just discussing potential problems;= =C2=A0 then I'm less likely to advocate for policy changes based on thi= ngs that have not happened yet.

-A
=C2= =A0

--
Rich


--001a1143fa402982e50565198b6f--