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 96C0C138334 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F86BE08FB; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x243.google.com (mail-lj1-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::243]) (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 A9019E08FA for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x243.google.com with SMTP id z26so3922567ljj.2 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT) 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=xn7lpuXDu/xK2Dp1ms9qS+nSRk8t1JuTCBP4LVXlNZw=; b=jOu4URRkNwOVD3fl/muSHirAyulNcC5X3jIdm+Pe5SwKV8YZS29MGPhgy7lXANkISg jXUU93m/knjovk0/QLOHxjZHlfMo6EF0FnVf/ZNXlng2Fxu89uo7rVpqcQ0R/URcd9YX 7GL3ifGK2nNkWtMO++iyCxh/GNYqPyiF4u+Tpj7yzdkzfhSB4t4sIrecECbH1bk0/Lil B+EEM2RrCcM7ngRCeenkZEyZf6Kfmk56UqfM9PI4Apxk6LAdxkfgdSV2w3o+FvYfRnBP JCDc0wYRRQBXCCK/MnqkbSOrGagxxicIckUeFAxeBYA1t5oxWNpNm81ZD1pLbRum6jG6 xs9w== 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=xn7lpuXDu/xK2Dp1ms9qS+nSRk8t1JuTCBP4LVXlNZw=; b=t8TWy9pjoe+Leff8+8fHhm8nCMQG+tkmbrGoy29JmGgJZ5DbHMSf47+TRM3uDPSkKt I+3m0NNUG90Fz54ZHm2lew0noMe8sp0EQL27uXav7d7u3f4VNkjvkJF9SCUGIE7akTmj jHYSWD6YqHF/o1bL5tP+Cjja2G5Xv11jXSTkS0HW1i0pgxzv/NjOKeOy4z4kaZFEp4bC TZK0jDfZmMv7uXi5Ki89L0hhxUvFNVbDIZvt0Yq/xKvolGDB8m8A1l3blIuouyDdGvfj W2aKFjF/cqsMOETN3aSbY/8bLq0Gj+vIwBa0DzpUD0PKHccQxPs99we3ujdZBpZVny3K 0VxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0e0Ly5GHYoGp7q9lYGrNhG8+RQP6lIGJERIwdWiQ8maiAU76a f76ddWij5bCHs5KQeGXcX7TVvcV1gLkm/L0bcwov8VCbclc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyybTrurLq6lCSTUgFhLNW4CjuCsw+vmXidnC64AACVuyI9WQD2mGc54C8f7jPHY9GCz+JftqsS4piUZmOFwUw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7605:: with SMTP id r5mr4276260ljc.161.1556305962857; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:12:42 -0700 (PDT) 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: <20190412144043.5010-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <22bf7f73eadd0504bc55df189778bde21d076042.camel@gentoo.org> <20190426162953.459cbf59@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:12:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000141060058773b8c0" X-Archives-Salt: 3a18881b-c44f-4e4d-886e-7b62ffc2282a X-Archives-Hash: c9fc7470e2098048a058cc1624d685f2 --000000000000141060058773b8c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 16:29 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 18:25:57 +0200 > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > > Why do you > > > presume that ComRel will never abuse its power, and at the same time > > > presume QA will kick people 'on a whim'? > > > > comrel does not create any rule. QA does. That's called separation of > > powers. > > If you follow that logic, we end up with ComRel deciding to punish > people based on the private opinions of its members rather than > established rules. > So when the QA team votes to punish someone, how is that not "based on the private opinions of QA team members" and as opposed to "a set of established rules?" This is an important distinction. There is a recent article[0] about how Amazon has automated the firing of employees in their warehouses because they have a minimum quota (work / time) for workers and if you miss your quota too often, the computer terminates you. Many people don't like this because it removes a critical factor of human *judgement*; that the rules are not sufficient to judge every situation. There is context around each situation (worker was ill, had person issues that impacted their speed, has problems with other co-workers, etc) and so just "well bob didn't work fast enough" is not sufficient for termination. I'm suggesting that someone has to have this judgement. In Gentoo I think there are four judgments to be made: (0) Create the list of QA rules. This is firmly in the QA team's purview. (1) Was a rule broken? Gentoo work is more complex than Amazon's warehouse work, so this question is not as simple as "bob missed his picking quota by 10% last month" because many QA violations have associated context and engineering tradeoffs (which is why humans are doing them.) So we cannot just automate this step. (2) Why was the rule broken? This is a question Amazon seems not to be asking according to the article (they just fire anyone who doesn't meet quota), but I suggest we do ask it because it helps us improve the rules and developer process. Understanding why violations happen help us prevent and mitigate them. (3) If a developer makes deliberate repeated mistakes over a time period, what do we do about it? I think 0-2 are clearly in the realm of the QA team to judge. I'm less convinced of (3) and this is the judgement I expect Comrel to be making because I believe this is not a technical problem. Ultimately if people refuse to follow the policies of the organization they should either get the policies modified, or leave. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-system-automatically-fires-warehouse= -workers-time-off-task-2019-4 > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --000000000000141060058773b8c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 16:29 +020= 0, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 18:25:57 +0200
> Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Why do you
> > presume that ComRel will never abuse its power, and at the same t= ime
> > presume QA will kick people 'on a whim'?
>
> comrel does not create any rule. QA does. That's called separation= of
> powers.

If you follow that logic, we end up with ComRel deciding to punish
people based on the private opinions of its members rather than
established rules.

So when the QA team = votes to punish someone, how is that not "based on the private opinion= s of QA team members" and as opposed to "a set of established rul= es?"

This is an important distinction. There = is a recent article[0] about how Amazon has automated the firing of employe= es in their warehouses because they have a minimum quota (work / time) for = workers and if you miss your quota too often, the computer terminates you. = Many people don't like this because it removes a critical factor of hum= an *judgement*; that the rules are not sufficient to judge every situation.= There is context around each situation (worker was ill, had person issues = that impacted their speed, has problems with other co-workers, etc) and so = just "well bob didn't work fast enough" is not sufficient for= termination.

I'm suggesting that someone has = to have this judgement. In Gentoo I think there are four judgments to be ma= de:
(0) Create the list of QA rules. This is firmly in the QA tea= m's purview.
(1) Was a rule broken? Gentoo work is more compl= ex than Amazon's warehouse work, so this question is not as simple as &= quot;bob missed his picking quota by 10% last month" because many QA v= iolations have associated context and engineering tradeoffs (which is why h= umans are doing them.) So we cannot just automate this step.
(2) = Why was the rule broken? This is a question Amazon seems not to be asking a= ccording to the article (they just fire anyone who doesn't meet quota),= but I suggest we do ask it because it helps us improve the rules and devel= oper process. Understanding why violations happen help us prevent and mitig= ate them.
(3) If a developer makes deliberate repeated mistakes o= ver a time period, what do we do about it?

I think= 0-2 are clearly in the realm of the QA team to judge. I'm less convinc= ed of (3) and this is the judgement I expect Comrel to be making because I = believe this is not a technical problem. Ultimately if people refuse to fol= low the policies of the organization they should either get the policies mo= dified, or leave.

--000000000000141060058773b8c0--