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 A3C3B1382C5 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A9252E0CC7; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg0-x243.google.com (mail-pg0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::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 60C28E0C8D for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-x243.google.com with SMTP id o1so6577833pgn.4 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:29:52 -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=HRN4j2/EVFEUijbyNPhVR47JFXi4Hij0W0TtDh7DWX4=; b=gawTiKwBX2SLL6Cimd0reVPKyglyLBWDhbV90K+vtBgYoRS/Tr2jnFwqEeI+HTjIxc hLYtrob3JuvyVnpofEWj43fP3vyXEbiAWor7KJooaHSHFjnj5uvmGbv3TVrta+2v+Dha cMTprc1sVvNhv42YlNACsqR6hxjNuw+vCqBUdgCApEhImTA5PXGEA8VTriGnJCfhHe2q KLPjc+8P/4o3CCl3k6Iomu254RjEoRMR/UTkFNP6B4fYwycqNtFM7EdfGNLEgm88vQBb ClHF+EN3ur2MYWPX5U+H9rECSwNQ/KfXVpW+y7UiZOHrFsKT6TJLX8oWVW5Lhj71KOx+ ensw== 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=HRN4j2/EVFEUijbyNPhVR47JFXi4Hij0W0TtDh7DWX4=; b=O/vBpULrUfnmJzMfAL1/XFplzLU0Y6Q19aWLkkIB2j3mdAOvRAXqjNZlt9rWJNd2tL HAIfmECMjcNNLhs663CqkOKwg6tSQa0NiSmdM/KphoBodDM/UQQP4peCPevq28IoRECP G7ef/braygoPCKckg6Uv+2CPX3Jnpt/SzpgJ/bqzuAZPBTsR/lL2Z4S5Gwtf4TVAQL7/ rf/veTZ+SpVq5Hn802Pro6n+IYUTuEx8QubGlKm3FLm+f3n+6L3NQxp6NNO3w7H9zpb6 IOZYQLmFEL8eKZCaa01Bs0e2HToACA88LSX5OhgUUV0Rr7VozTX/78aW1JeCsQqxEgOM kcfw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBl5n/BsOT249O6htGY1uCUa1GhU/x1BhjJyxJjnIEkD8jccHWv gZn6TLnbphJe2HUGQo95jN7l+sSkC4IHSYcTB6vM9g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226f0v5o8AeO62CB/x6G8lIYp71hbJNsp5mkouKlp9e0i3LZIc68FiV2zJtuvzu5Zv2E5UJB7SCOcd7FhnyQoec= X-Received: by 10.98.166.86 with SMTP id t83mr10080014pfe.80.1518402590667; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:29:50 -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 10.100.134.1 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:29:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180212021651.GA7522@linux1.home> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212001225.GA7092@linux1.home> <20180212021651.GA7522@linux1.home> From: Rich Freeman Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:29:49 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4L-FVUeTKFSR-lMGZACpTpLiSTg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: a740d9ff-d571-4316-b4a2-ebd2a35629b0 X-Archives-Hash: 254c6e2fe9d1bbe90017bb34422a5ef0 On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 07:29:37PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Checks and balances are when two bodies are allowed to be in >> opposition, with neither body being superior to the other. In the US >> system the three federal branches operate in this way for the most >> part, with each branch able to block certain actions of the others. >> >> An appeal isn't a check and balance. An appeal is a superior body >> having the opportunity to overrule the action of an inferior one. > > Ok, this makes sense, but my point still holds. > > If enough of the members of the inferior body are members and able to > vote on the appeal in the superior body, there is no reason for anyone > to appeal, and if we are going to do that, we should kill the ability > to appeal entirely. If there is no reason for anyone to appeal then the original body is functioning as intended. There is no need to eliminate the ability to appeal, because sometimes it might be necessary. >> >> What is confusing about it? Imagine that the Council dissolved both >> QA and Comrel, and directly handled both? The main issue with this is >> that stuff would probably get neglected, but ultimately it is the same >> body that is making the final decisions. > > This still doesn't make sense. You need to elaborate, unless that is what the next paragraph is. Do you think that the Council would not make the correct decision with regard to an issue currently brought before QA or Comrel if those bodies were dissolved? If so, then why allow them to hear appeals? > Another thing to consider is, > Comrel and QA members are already expected to recuse themselves from voting on > appeals from their projects at the council level. While this has happened the last few times this has come up, I don't believe it is a documented policy, and IMO it is a mistake for anybody to recuse themselves from a decision unless they feel they are not qualified to handle it or there is a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is not having an opinion on something, either stated or otherwise. A conflict of interest is when a decision that would benefit Gentoo might be personally detrimental. For example, letting somebody set their own salary is a conflict of interest because it is in the employer's interest to minimize salary and in the individual's interest to maximize it. Hearing an appeal of your own case would probably also be a conflict of interest, assuming you were directly involved in the case (which is usually the case when you bring forth a case). However, in the past the Council members who were on Comrel disagreed with this and recused themselves. They can do that, but I think it is harmful. I'm sure many reading my email think that my approach would be harmful. That's ok - it is fine if a majority of Gentoo devs are wrong on something. :) >> As far as I am aware there is no provision in US law that prevents >> this. It is just impractical, and would defeat the point of >> delegation. > > Do there have to be laws that prevent it? There are no laws that > prevent it, but it doesn't happen. If someone did try this, I'm sure > they would be shot down because of the perceived conflict. What conflict exists? People keep using this word in situations where it doesn't legally apply. If a conflict of interest exists you should be able to clearly state what the two interests are. In what way is a judge harmed by their decision being overturned? This isn't something judges are disciplined for (though if they ignore previous precedent that is another matter). Likewise, in what way does the head of Comrel suffer personal harm if a decision they made in private is overturned in private? They don't even have a reputation at stake. What motive would they have to stick to their original decision if a new argument came up that might otherwise persuade them if they hadn't made the original decision? >> As I recall there have been complaints made on the lists that the >> leaders on the Council need to do more to fix problems actively vs >> just waiting for people to come to them for decisions. > > This topic deserves a totally separate thread, but I will say here that it > depends on how you feel about how Gentoo should be lead. Some have said > that the council should be treated more like a dispute resolutions body > than a leadership body. I have heard a lot of talk about how innovation > comes from the developers and the council should stay out of the way > until a decision is requested from the community. When acting in their role on the Council I agree. However, Council members are still developers, and they're allowed to wear multiple hats. > > This is also a completely separate subject, but imo there are several > critical tlps that are idle. > Well, I hope you realize that any decision made by any project could be appealed to the Council, since that is basically what the council was invented for in GLEP 39, so I seriously hope you don't plan to contribute to fixing any of those... :) -- Rich