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 17A7B1382C5 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED726E0C34; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (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 AF97FE0C30 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m19so1393339pgn.1 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:29:39 -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=5dvxp/piaZP91VHgi0CfUykJPX6f3BWSQgujvME9LYc=; b=PsC6MOZyzFdzLVhZ1oPTSrXxbBU72VahQyGmRAPUqHK4i20bXxXrqq0lkpBbqT8NAB zep+yRHj62oLSzoTU045FhFkarFXcYfeGHJgUnnf/aZSoX5g1LoumZuICLelxMlvSF24 uuUs+dkgKaJDdKIeWok83rvXXJGi2UV651FaUMBnFqRR5OKhzjdXI5Wf2rTc519ibUrJ 0jCeiB/3aK3HBJNXbgTgmi4Ph9V3eqLu2hNG44gs8a9swsBrx4qaNohn5wiYwj+MPNMh 4SWR1Z6Rp3+U4vQfZnzsbPtAo3YvR36FtWHkAGfp2VzSrP2QTaiG4gvb1xnRoc4DHT9O WAuw== 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=5dvxp/piaZP91VHgi0CfUykJPX6f3BWSQgujvME9LYc=; b=DFwMPr48eAn+FVs/LSclkULEXzriVOGtdLRtZi+5uclijHyduAGZ26HngRYyY0j6/n Nlq7LWm5K4jLEJs/8fjiZI3r9Eop6L/53djtWTN8EIgRGFXT4F+fKYW+DtcHiJRLgUIv WG4riHq/1FmNA1vTAP606hYGewSEWr2AeVi0NVg+ht2bJvX/ypZy9ZZiOxvCAROAk0qq y0AM8pGf2bCipKh6zQgS/BB9DkdXvAuK8zGnXS+3NIGp3yEYkWkzrqAxpZHvOQdUgcFU zNwyJr1rNPHDeZyOI46jQBYBU9cJ/Fsn6TCbzxhvfcmKKFx3EzoLhZl1q5SSYEGeCxxw 6nYg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAobDIRi7dU3OgJHVhWFwvjYWmgwtA+O+hQ6TIlan6koBx7d+Ae 3vxzS380S7UgXTPc9bek/ApAhg65/3CaMjNoKunHBQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225XBgjmTGUEDjVkYsYQXGQuQe5bxawaczVL9YNkonumo25zJuAYaB7naF9L3KVs8G9CmFqkwlWsJjsEVvMkA3U= X-Received: by 10.101.81.13 with SMTP id f13mr8118285pgq.242.1518395378161; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:29:38 -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 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180212001225.GA7092@linux1.home> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180212001225.GA7092@linux1.home> From: Rich Freeman Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:29:37 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AwPzlWuSb2NhYoJ-ioxBg6VKoyk Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 763406b7-5db2-4bdd-8155-5ed5327256f2 X-Archives-Hash: ad214217ac06a6ab2e1950001816320e On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:12 PM, William Hubbs 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