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 11462138334 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 09:53:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5657E0844; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 09:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01a.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01a.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A3FDE0841 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 09:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon_Static) by smarthost01a.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iE9Q2-0004fW-NI for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 09:53:38 +0000 Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:53:16 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <3aab702403d9a7e0bf7246f14a5130acd464ca45.camel@gentoo.org> (from mgorny@gentoo.org on Sat Sep 21 08:01:54 2019) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.5.6 Message-Id: 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0eoPrgC5AKEQXwLuoiD/" X-Originating-smarthost01a-IP: [62.3.120.142] Feedback-ID: 62.3.120.142 X-Archives-Salt: 0b484afe-96bb-4e11-ac87-5681be607923 X-Archives-Hash: cb8dc942df706896677dc113edb4fa5e --=-0eoPrgC5AKEQXwLuoiD/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019.09.21 08:01, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > Hi, everyone. >=20 > Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure > for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to > our > wiki page. >=20 > TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution > (or > post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance, > and Council being the second. >=20 >=20 > Full proposed policy, with rationale: >=20 > 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel. > The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council. >=20 > R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable > to > make it the first appeal instance. >=20 >=20 > 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month > before > planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third- > mail). >=20 > R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would > not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity).=20 > Undertakers > recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to > confirm that someone's retirement is still pending. >=20 >=20 > 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. >=20 > If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired > throughout the appeal process. The appeal process is finished if > either: >=20 > a. the Council issues final decision, >=20 > b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days, >=20 > c. both sides agree not to appeal further. >=20 > R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring > (then maybe retiring again). >=20 >=20 > 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between > Undertakers and developers. It is not a replacement for communicating > with Undertakers. >=20 > R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to > resolve it between us. For example, if we missed something, then you > should tell us rather than calling for appeal. However, if we do > disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is > something you can appeal. >=20 >=20 > 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on > existing > policies. While it may influence future policies, those need to be > carried out via appropriate policy making channels. >=20 > R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently. If a > policy > needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review. >=20 >=20 > WDYT? >=20 > --=20 > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny >=20 >=20 Micha=C5=82, Looks good. It also looks like the standard process so does it need to be documented explicitly on the Undertakers page?=20 --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64= --=-0eoPrgC5AKEQXwLuoiD/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEsOrcx0gZrrCMwJzo/xJODTqpeT4FAl2PLY0ACgkQ/xJODTqp eT6miAf/dz3Cuct6hCLkPFtfOWbsZtV6eDHQbVKewMaHGDqB5NFXRCp/G2VyTF9U MkRnwR8XGdA0UUbSfK+qOink53mqQ1T1Jk4aZ7cJ7qqFSNsfLFkEdZefT+Rmz/qQ GPwx3G3Y3cwrRVCn1JJLR9mMIQkNcV2gRKGVr6bbny4lzPa0kN1FP72tBp/S/C50 0N/v+s+fJkACTeG5dTD3UQPYr5jRjmsn9SAIURcNvzLv6q3V0gJbG8Qhw6gSg9wL FA9bAPZebje7cyHkNaDcUG7AUk/9eJxmUlN8zzR9wZ6UH/LC7IOdUC28g2V7mR7u KHOxhBNWp2W9GHUluSzhtfY3ppYeJA== =1Yh4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0eoPrgC5AKEQXwLuoiD/--