Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:12 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Appeals sometimes reverse decisions because these lower groups are
>> imperfect at enacting the policies set at the top, or they are
>> operating in areas where no precedent exists.  These reversals
>> shouldn't be seen as some kind of checks/balances system that adds
>> value, but an inefficiency that wastes time deliberating matters more
>> than once.  It is necessary only because it would be even more
>> inefficient to slow everything down to a pace where one small group
>> could deal with it all.
>
>  I agree that the higher body should not be involved in every case;
>  However, I absolutely do not agree that appeals are not a
>  checks/balances system. If someone appeals something it means that they
> feel that the decision made by the lower body needs to be re-examined.
> If the higher body then overrules the lower body, it isn't meant in a
> shameful way, it is just guidance for the lower body in the future.

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.
Comrel doesn't act as a check against the Council, nor does the
Council really act as a check against Comrel.  Council sets policies,
Comrel enforces them (with its own ability to set policy subordinate
to Council).

>
>> So, if there were no QA or comrel, and there were just the council,
>> and it handled everything and there were no appeals at all, this would
>> not lower the quality of decisions, but it would actually raise them
>> (since some incorrect decisions might not be appealed).  However, it
>> would come at a cost of a lot less stuff getting done since you'd have
>> reducing the pool of labor.
>
>  Rich, I don't follow this logic at all.

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.

> I know about the appellate courts, but there are other levels as well.
> You would never find a district courte judge on an appellate court
> simultaneously, and you would never find an appellate court judge or
> district courte judge serving simultaneously as a justice on the Supreme Court.

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.

Keep in mind that real-world courts pay salaries and as a result tend
to have a surplus of qualified professionals to man every post.  The
same is not true within Gentoo.

In an ideal world we'd have more people to man these posts.

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.  I think this
is the main reason why Council members ended up in lead roles on other
projects.  Some project was considered to need help, and a Council
member stepped into try to strengthen it.  I'd be careful about
banning this sort of practice, because then the only thing the Council
could do if Comrel or QA were inactive would be to whine about it on
the lists until somebody else stepped up to fix things.

In any case, that's my opinion.  I suspect it might not be a majority
opinion and that is OK.  The world won't end if a few more critical
Gentoo projects go idle...

-- 
Rich