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 20FE21382C5 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DFAFAE0AB4; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (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 9DB60E0AB1 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id e11so2029024pgq.12 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:46:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=Muu7rTxYQDEm8QdBlX0V9Rgus3YWoQlTUwOc/DRAKbI=; b=iVyei4jEkPN+g7l08aE//zJ5F6jxpb+B1+/0NbP93IKLJ58mS87+u0iOL1mOjx7iH8 3OJavwQnyM5/R0hOE6EmK4R3U47AByprmFP2ia5HfzgE81qS+TOi59LHZ8GeYBq9dx0B PiZsmKbmvxk2OZTRN4AzOyw0wY+GUGGrsZhuIhlxNGKsUrpr0mH8rZD2HR+oDTCAWbuH uJizndRdkgYg4INf7nmajHjpKioRVzHv9bJNFQNSrZ2Sm4wpbzGvYlO1o7XzXNnsASqa JW30DBxY6i6YFOu/hLoSqva7Qy41ECIagA39fr4jsOKjIx9HtTanY0i1mo5r6fpIhROr 7nUg== 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=Muu7rTxYQDEm8QdBlX0V9Rgus3YWoQlTUwOc/DRAKbI=; b=NFCTRlffRMRIZ+8IITskGYSFdwXZIsJFQfaQOa24Qkt/Lj0HM3l3E7+RWOAYcXDBii 1nsH/NSG+U9qqTIonan1qu3joj20ljxDZyLwUSdo8d1GJj9wDknC6b50udK8DT+rNGzK jiNq+F/IMP4UtrZB01BGF++sDodchU86b0JZJaG2tg8gFeKD5//s8f5oirmYHIY/EkjH S22y7hv+1v1RMuuhuNfAeYA+EokIEYa8uhQ6f9XcijMOyIKhSAbMQgUs0tvHQuc11zfp JjfFKBYi3/6vNzOTkUO0iU8cXP2L48QrOkc8zfZmS/v4MWhakOr9Hz4mLTSnrg7c6Ssm kKEg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAYZxqVlUen75xRUqL7+FzwTG2rSjmUznsf+mQfCIBRI+C1RAnx m6ea7+wtalZ3lbwaoO4a6mvAtwpfxN/+NtIKijlGZbSU X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227Jgm1NTRQk63k+s6tvReGbhVhWSBdLybKQyUGtdLDYEpeVnzs/SvRgR8ksHqMpkrD3iYAzqaKagz5vt7FxpAE= X-Received: by 10.99.190.74 with SMTP id g10mr6383191pgo.143.1518457581028; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:46:21 -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: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.191.20 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:46:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212165506.GA23201@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:46:19 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DUKWlxJxJv_DaF1voVBa1LFzN5U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: d37a08f0-d9d9-42fc-ad4d-75ef8dacc3af X-Archives-Hash: a6fa12a52a989d36bd82b69371a03aad On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Daniel Robbins wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> The confusing thing about this is, how would we define "conflict of >> interest"? >> Well, Google supplies this which seems reasonable: "a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity" Organizations often have specific guidelines. For example, at work if I'm involved in a decision to select a vendor I would need to disclose if I have any kind of business relationship with that vendor outside of work. Above a certain level in the company employees are required to disclose membership on the boards of any other organizations (which would include the Gentoo Trustees), though this does not automatically get considered as a conflict. Below that level I think any employee has to disclose membership on the boards of companies that are vendors/suppliers/customers of the company (again, not automatically a conflict). And of course I cannot receive gifts/etc from vendors other than token stuff like pens/etc. If Gentoo actually sold products and I was involved in a project at work that was considering buying that product, I would have to disclose that to my boss (right now my only official role is as a Gentoo dev but I'd still prefer to be safe), and while I'd probably be welcome to provide general feedback/etc and my own personal recommendations, they would probably have somebody else sitting on the group that makes the decision, and they probably would also not share with me the bids of all the companies. This actually would benefit me in that I couldn't be accused of doing anything wrong. A situation which is closer to what you're getting at is also often a target of company rules, though I wouldn't classify this as a conflict-of-interest. At work there are policies in place where certain actions require the involvement of two different people, such as any action that involves a payment. This isn't about conflict of interest so much as just generally raising the bar for fraud so that one person couldn't approve a vendor, approve an order from that vendor, and approve payment against that vendor's invoice (at least not as the sole approver). If there were an actual conflict of interest that person wouldn't be allowed to have any of those roles for a particular purchase, but absent a conflict there is still a desire to have a second person in the loop for some of those steps just to make it harder to embezzle. To the degree that we think that it makes sense to force there to be more warm bodies involved in a QA/Comrel decision-appeal chain I could see the value in reducing overlap. IMO there are already a lot of people involved though. > Potentially, it might be good if a member could also request a person to > abstain if they felt there was a conflict of interest. Well, nothing stops anybody from requesting anything, the question is whether this is binding. You can't just leave it up to random individuals to decide which specific Council/Trustee Members get to vote on which issues, for reasons that I hope are obvious. -- Rich