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 5EEA9138350 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 06:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E6BBE0893; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 06:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw1-xc32.google.com (mail-yw1-xc32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c32]) (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 D2C9BE088D for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 06:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-xc32.google.com with SMTP id f204so3697008ywc.10 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 22:35:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=um+XfIRi5m0yd2TTwvqK9gxXZ/vloQt4bpfuqOCHTSA=; b=0NC7v9DYmj/n+2zle70j2dVl7I3PhitY+nF+zPlxMGB+xAkHK+qrVEhsuE6FhMboQ7 /uuoyfz055OAmqsdM/MaaDL7joxrvVVNFFFlFdGBHHNaek1z0g3O266P+afyJkPrTTEl 3mEpMwvUfUSAhocoZ6nRqY5Dyq0RcW+X5AorY4HITYjNLaNTg5eFBCRx2T287kcc+m5g dKOhJbV/oR90jyksiSBErAo9jFfwEfxiZw+AIgZebmHL8NEY2KAFmWxJbKE5eJY1y07q M+P8ML71HKiSQZDvvFtDrfoGRIp8KiyzLUIKvD+Fz7GrTGrHn/ATbV8x6JMgUOwkRv0M DoeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=um+XfIRi5m0yd2TTwvqK9gxXZ/vloQt4bpfuqOCHTSA=; b=oRFnEmMaNEgOReXsrTWSwe5+b2MU+6SA4MkcW/2Ddicpbqt3EgEhzf1C5pLdHRcaEk +slJ9h8zcWQbedBHRz1nA2oVlVHBZvmPLLB50wqGpKvtOssr0ckTuAxQfDZ/0pjXIauP wXguB5MxcaLCx4shDyLXt1iAOKwmfZqNnq4B2vcD+BFhUvLq/vq2/xTPeELP+AgU4jMK u4Ky8WG/sxtOpQp35z24rQ9i5AgKcV6SW3fdn2mrZ6as+JaXp03ndTwjeokL3uaNOIqu 4wX8+tZ86DRtm563k2FNterYCl1wiXuQOzlbmFRcfLYMor9tXgNBnX9bgdwPYhIAXpLZ 9dPw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWikT1Kig0+bOByQWXp2Ofne+c6IR/X3D0SsdE2nYvc4p3BHotG 4qO05hr+dkUaxUKo16kFYj/pTRyxa4MdqnGNH/gxfM6yEbTppw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/l7PJOt16opEkicZcA9nahTpZkzGCSV9ftdhqBw1p8wtGPPZdxJeaD6MIXztQA9p9lOmF/fFKAtzeuSc1haQ= X-Received: by 2002:a81:34c6:: with SMTP id b189mr38408225ywa.106.1582439742406; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 22:35:42 -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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200217161812.GA5969@linux1.home> <441737a3d1c0efdfc9f95b1cb1fde47b0f55d58f.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 22:35:31 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: comrel changes To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b99ada059f387621" X-Archives-Salt: 9e9ff66d-fee5-43c6-9ca5-8c664a3acdf3 X-Archives-Hash: 9ec463e4cd975389d39797d3fa93ac5b --000000000000b99ada059f387621 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:39 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.02.21 09:19, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 22:24 +0100, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1= =BB=85n wrote: > > > > Alec Warner schrieb: > > > > > > > > > I'm a little bit concerned that this addresses the symptoms > > > instead of the problem. Have you shared your concerns with comrel > > > regarding their lack of timely communication on reported issues? Do > > > they even share the same goals you enumerated? > > > > > My strawperson argument is that: > > > > > - (0) The council will elect some lead. > > > > > - The lead will never write reports (or write them but stop.) > > > > > - The lead will get removed per policy. > > > > > - Council will elect a new lead. > > > > > - GOTO 0 > > > > > > > > My suggestion is in that case of missed report deadline, Council > > > asks for > > > > volunteers from the developer community to step up, and appoints tw= o > > > of them > > > > to go through ComRel records and produce the transparency report. > > > > > > > > Regular independent review of ComRel activity is what NeddySeagoon > > > and I > > > > originally suggested and discussed with ComRel a while back. But > > > they seemed > > > > completely against it, so we eventually dropped it. > > > > > > > > > > All things considered, maybe creating a separate 'revision' group > > > would > > > be better, independently of the reports. Either split ComRel in two, > > > or > > > appoint something independent. Let 'core' ComRel do their work, whil= e > > > the 'revision' group merely monitor their activities without getting > > > directly involved in the process. > > > > This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo council. > > 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. > I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a report[0], and the Council[1] reviews it. Could it lead to horrific fishing expeditions? Sure. But there is always risk in oversight. Building an ideal system is not possible; there are trade offs in engineering and there are tradeoffs in organizational structure and accountability. In some new system where there is oversight of comrel we will have people who can peek into the decision making process and: - leak private details - potentially reverse decisions - potentially force action with incomplete information (e.g. to meet some arbitrary deadline to "make cases be resolved faster." These are all potential risks. Will they happen? Hard to know without trying. -A [0] FWIW the Trustees are also potentially interested in the report. [1] The council can always delegate it to someone. Accountability (I am accountable for X) and Responsibility (I will literally do X) are not the same thing. > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --000000000000b99ada059f387621 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at = 9:39 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgo= rny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000,= Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2020.02.21 09:19, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 22:24 +0100, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Ngu= y=E1=BB=85n wrote:
> > > Alec Warner schrieb:
> > >
> > > > I'm a little bit concerned that this addresses the = symptoms
> > instead of the=C2=A0 problem. Have you shared your concerns with = comrel
> > regarding their lack of=C2=A0 timely communication on reported is= sues? Do
> > they even share the same goals=C2=A0 you enumerated?
> > > > My strawperson argument is that:
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- (0) The council will elect some lead.
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- The lead will never write reports (or wri= te them but stop.)
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- The lead will get removed per policy.
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- Council will elect a new lead.
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0- GOTO 0
> > >
> > > My suggestion is in that case of missed report deadline, Cou= ncil
> > asks for
> > > volunteers from the developer community to step up, and appo= ints two
> > of them
> > > to go through ComRel records and produce the transparency re= port.
> > >
> > > Regular independent review of ComRel activity is what NeddyS= eagoon
> > and I
> > > originally suggested and discussed with ComRel a while back.= But
> > they seemed
> > > completely against it, so we eventually dropped it.
> > >
> >
> > All things considered, maybe creating a separate 'revision= 9; group
> > would
> > be better, independently of the reports.=C2=A0 Either split ComRe= l in two,
> > or
> > appoint something independent.=C2=A0 Let 'core' ComRel do= their work, while
> > the 'revision' group merely monitor their activities with= out getting
> > directly involved in the process.
>
> This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo cou= ncil.
> Unless, that is, council have no oversight of comrel?

No, that's not how things work.=C2=A0 You don't have an appeal body=
proactively look into what all projects are doing.
I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a repo= rt[0], and the Council[1] reviews it. Could it lead to horrific fishing exp= editions? Sure. But there is always risk in oversight. Building an ideal sy= stem is not possible; there are trade offs in engineering and there are tra= deoffs in organizational structure and accountability.

=
In some new system where there is oversight of comrel we will have peo= ple who can peek into the decision making process and:
=C2=A0- le= ak private details
=C2=A0- potentially reverse decisions
=C2=A0- potentially force action with incomplete information (e.g. to mee= t some arbitrary deadline to "make cases be resolved faster."

These are all potential risks. Will they happen? Hard= to know without trying.

-A

[0] FWIW the Trustees are also potentially interested in the report.=
[1] The council can always delegate it to someone. Accountabilit= y (I am accountable for X) and Responsibility (I will literally do X) are n= ot the same thing.
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--000000000000b99ada059f387621--