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 2B68B138350 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E4D4E094A; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pj1-f43.google.com (mail-pj1-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) (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 1419CE0946 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 12so1513517pjb.5 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:19:07 -0800 (PST) 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=3BTjJsqKdqIPiRMql5+9oCWPdEqelZ+c4zj2Tv5hmA8=; b=JOBRcsuz0r+UhI+JwjpRtwbwc48PaFsIoLe0lGgyQCYC31/DnBLrVur3I/7DVk2bXm Uh4sCy42kLpeGaSCg+cPqYftbzxGERMWuYQCtqfjhf+OAlMNpVGP1ck71thGslIVbMyN mfJ3f9cxWksl9P9DI3Z0arGTbTu++4fvpDgak0QK7R4ts9nl6k97f+ddQNrdNGpFoVCY E0AOS0z3vfZKeQsDi+dmj/IfEKy+ifoOzPaS27UpNTNKjvGx7YOGyJJVZiGUzHpSzNJx TD0WhBR3QGKoZY6EluP/3QmlWxUE87zf0JVdUgzfo0gWZ59vSycy4SdatnvldvnDUVMI IUbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTocF3kxn9Ff5kmzUa/Do35wmvQN5uB41n036ia01WnoSn/C2H hYc0SLzna1xrY0HR19PkbCYHmM1AoOXIbAD6j1fb2Unzdng= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxKhdO8PlWa9W1hX8scU1+wQJB2YzLkpoBa+zw4aTtJ4RNdYeTozKix46IW+tXOfffEuY9bfeRGcKk1l2J8UWY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7589:: with SMTP id j9mr308452pll.312.1582737546264; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:19:06 -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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1c28039f9bf22ee07a473b8bfde840727db848e5.camel@gentoo.org> <20200226165439.GA19499@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org> In-Reply-To: <20200226165439.GA19499@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:18:54 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: comrel changes To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 19e6682e-1490-49f9-b794-febad19e95bd X-Archives-Hash: de2f6d8d20b3274b9f3f1c8727fd2449 On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:54 AM William Hubbs wrote: > > > Outside of ComRel the problem I've personally had is that reports have > > been ignored. In fact, one report lead to agreement that a ComRel > > action should take place and then... nothing. Once ComRel responded > > again the lead at the time said too much time had passed (~a month) to > > punish the person now. Extremely frustrating for reporters. I don't > > think I'm the only one with this sort of experience. (I suggest that > > we require bugs to be filed -- not emailed to comrel@ -- so they're > > more easily tracked). > > Agreed, this is very demoralizing. Besides your suggestion of requiring > bugs to be filed, I would consider a hard timeout of 7-14 days when a > bug is filed. Once that timeout passes with no action from comrel, the > bug goes to the council. I think that this depends a bit on your definition of "no action." Do you mean no final decision? Or simply no activity? The former is easy to measure, the latter is going to potentially a lot of heartbeat activities that just kick the can. I think comrel activities by their nature tend to require a bit of investigation/etc. They're also not intended to be purely punitive. That is, the goal isn't just to decide "do we kick them out or not?" The ideal comrel outcome would be if the parties involved were able to resolve their differences, agree to work together in a more mutually-agreeable fashion in the future, and for over the long term this to actually happen. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but this ideal outcome is the sort that is actually the fuzziest to measure: 1. It probably takes a while to be "completed." Kicking somebody out or telling the complainant to go away is simpler than getting them to hash out their issues. 2. It doesn't involve a top-down decision so much as the parties coming to an agreement. 3. Its ultimate success isn't really demonstrated until much later in time. Plus if you send it to council you're now faced with council having to actually do all the investgating, arbitration, and so on. When there have been council appeals it has been more about examining descisions to kick somebody out, with the investigations/etc already being done. So, this was more about examining all the data and just affirming or reversing the decision that was made. However, stepping in earlier means council members having to get their hands dirty. Generally we've tried to make the council more of a decision body and less of a hands-dirty body, deferring to QA/comrel/etc for these activities. This gives more people access to those roles, and also allows council to effectively have their hands in everything while not getting bogged down. > I'm sure comrel is a thankless job, but if it isn't done and the hard decisions are not made, the community suffers. IMO it isn't helpful for comrel to operate without ANY positive feedback. I think the current design makes it hard for people to offer any kind of meaningful feedback. However, if a job is important to the community, then people should not feel that it is thankless. It isn't just about making people feel good either. Without any positive feedback all you have is the negative, and it really does become difficult to tell if you're having a positive impact. Proctors basically hasn't done anything in the last 6 months or so and I think part of it is that the few actions that have been taken have almost exclusively received negative feedback. I can't remember the last time that somebody thanked me for taking some action (and unlike Comrel the actions of proctors are much more visible). How is that to be interpreted as anything other than a community consensus that the actions were inappropriate? And if so, why would we want to keep doing it? Perhaps ignoring all requests for intervention is an improvement. Certainly I've seen far fewer complaints about inaction than past actions. No doubt this isn't helping with the Comrel workload. I guess the point is that if we want these bodies to do something, there should be positive as well as negative reinforcement for the actions they do/don't take. -- Rich