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 620F0138330 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 66C0EE0BF5; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com (mail-pf0-f169.google.com [209.85.192.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36A93E0BCA for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 190so19361795pfv.1 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:58:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=DUH9H+iIuxP3667SpjTZjnpcEvCv3frUMvEof270kD4=; b=JDMqykHtf9ufRr6SIikEryVtcKj4Pg1Gum7mLGCfo/oMI5owaosS5HrWQHkySuYwUn 7ZRgeMbcZDbmdZJ8VTmToQdABxS/vrJZCnZBbpfFyY5j9x5IVXIPS4UuLar4pZlGzh64 voW9SPkOXhi8GkRKm6S0Op5fczA42SLsbg/i48H+ari1PmLavolrXsu9UVEX9J4EUW2b HyY3ARUcYXdykmEGG4ibc7TQDs+khn3V9IHaz6eMdXZ99nn6xkUYWKEu5WXJYZwUHz9b 1IYCIzi4kr0NN3uNwVahzd2otONXPm1o+kZOcv6uH9ivJXBMiiBUusJ2u+4KNskpCm6B pj8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=DUH9H+iIuxP3667SpjTZjnpcEvCv3frUMvEof270kD4=; b=TU7k7XO3rmCpA07daPiZDAVGqKNQNYRwpxOpjpeIFROzICOPsAGhJsUC3PLGr6ngYl bNIYmf39gCXYrX5i2677RRNukhwxK3x3yqbUrfV3oIu9T0/cX4wSUyJkVqtNAPNzcjDU VfYxm3EEBl2Swg5ks3RPxhSqvThC2+6GaPrZFsx/PKSzL0vmSnnWMZLGADC6SpQnlayS RJRlpWeHmpGhFvuEr5SpWjLuNc09Gsmk6JcmmoCgbOvvZsqc2wL38e4XtQghH9bfIPxu wawny+X98X9wDmDdw+24gJini6mp+R9Ks8txii+Sn6+D7+x+ljeaZMH7rQUAFPHJsxmN p1OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlYIhXXaVnqZ+5qI3wBluur+mV6aKTLiNigqGo1QB2T3E9ohUNFJHh+YqCaRdD6qg== X-Received: by 10.98.103.143 with SMTP id t15mr1919458pfj.149.1476280700881; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:602:9c00:cf41:a15c:1ca:cdf1:57a3? ([2601:602:9c00:cf41:a15c:1ca:cdf1:57a3]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id b66sm12132046pfd.9.2016.10.12.06.58.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years... To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <201610112037.34443.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <7f01241d-0e5b-220b-b90f-f41e41c4bbc5@gmail.com> <57FDDAEE.3010907@gmail.com> From: Nick Vinson Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:58:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eca8kLdwBjaWKX5FKNWNrAkdmjuQNckWp" X-Archives-Salt: 7e99f0a2-ffd3-4209-be7e-6e09c5cbd1aa X-Archives-Hash: a42471315a2ca3f23a897e5a8e1de1b0 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --eca8kLdwBjaWKX5FKNWNrAkdmjuQNckWp Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B5XOl6TKo7xfD9bC1SnEX7N9J5vAa4wML" From: Nick Vinson To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years... References: <201610112037.34443.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <7f01241d-0e5b-220b-b90f-f41e41c4bbc5@gmail.com> <57FDDAEE.3010907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: --B5XOl6TKo7xfD9bC1SnEX7N9J5vAa4wML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/12/2016 03:51 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Dale wrote: >> >> It seems to me that William posted something that someone else didn't >> like. >=20 > That seems like a pretty big assumption. How do you know that it has > something to do with something he posted? >=20 >> I mentioned I help admin a website. If someone violates the rules, I >> contact them on it and they chose to delete their account instead of >> dealing with the matter, it doesn't mean they can never rejoin the >> site. It does mean that if they do and I know it, then they would hav= e >> to address the previous problem. >=20 > That is basically the same as Gentoo. I've yet to see an appeal where > the person appealing wasn't told in writing exactly what the concern > was. If they weren't that would certainly be something I'd be > concerned about in an appeal. >=20 > Personally, I care far more about whether somebody is likely to follow > the CoC TODAY than the exact circumstances of how they may have > violated it 8+ years ago. ANY new recruit has to demonstrate that > they are likely to follow the CoC and ones who may have violated it in > the past are subject to more scrutiny. >=20 > Something that keeps coming up in this discussion is reference to > process and procedure within Comrel. The concern is nobody > understands how they made the decision, or what rules they were > supposed to follow. When appeals are discussed they're in terms of > whether Comrel followed the rules when it did its job. I get that > courts often work this way. >=20 > However, I think we should be far more concerned about outcome. Is > somebody willing to follow the CoC, or not? Are they able to follow > the CoC, or not? Perhaps the way the black box works can be improved, > and maybe we can expose more of the gears inside, but what matters the > most is that it comes up with the right decision. This is what all the discussion about accountability and traceability is for. It's to propose a method to confirm that ComRel and bodies like ComRel are functioning as attended. Furthermore, one suggested method was periodic (I believe monthly was suggested earlier) statistics on relevant metrics. That way you have actual snapshots of what's going on and can easily identify any undesirable trends (definition of undesirable trends to be determined later). I'll also reiterate what's been pointed out earlier. Council's ability to review when appeals are filed isn't sufficient since appeals do not happen on a regular basis and do not grant the Council the ability to see the "whole ComRel" operation. Instead, the appeals are to focus on the issue(s) mentioned in the appeal. >=20 > So, if you don't like the results of a decision by all means appeal > it. I can't promise that Council will follow the same rules Comrel > followed. As far as I'm aware the Council hasn't really set any rules > as to how it judges appeals. Ultimately what you'll get is an And that could be a problem, but it might not be. It *is* a problem if it turns out that the Council's handling of appeals are inconsistent. However, I believe you said you've only seen 2 appeals since becoming a councilor which means there's hardly enough information to make a determination either way. > independent evaluation of whatever concerns Comrel raises (or which I'm a bit uneasy with the "independent evaluation" claim. I understand there's no rule banning ComRel members from serving on the Council simultaneously and that ComRel Councilors are expected to recuse themselves. However, it still feels like a stretch to claim the Council performed an "independent evaluation" when the number of Councilors performing that evaluation are less than what you'd get if they were debating changing Gentoo's color scheme. Then, as I pointed out in #gentoo-council, it's possible, but unlikely, under the current system for all Council members to also be ComRel members. If such a situation did occur, then one of two things would have to happen. Either a. appeals are no longer possible until someone who is not part of ComRel is elected to the Council or b. Council reviews are no longer "independent evaluations", but instead a second review by ComRel. Personally, I'd like the rules updated so its guaranteed the above can never happen. > were originally raised to Comrel), and any subsequent behavior of the > parties involved, and a judgement as to how the situation should be > handled. >=20 > And this brings me back to a concern I mentioned a long time ago in > this thread: appeal on the basis that you've proven that you're a good > member of the community. If the basis of your appeal is that your > behavior shouldn't matter, well, don't be surprised if it is defeated. > If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel is out to get you, well, > I'm sure it will get considered and maybe some reforms may come out of > it if there is something to it, but whether you stay or go is a > separate matter. If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel didn't > complete step 2.3.1 of the Comrel rules of procedure then maybe we'll > ask Comrel to try to follow the rules better or fix them after sending > you on your way. If the basis of your appeal is that Comrel shouldn't That approach isn't good. If you expect everyone to follow rules and procedures, you have to hold the Council applicable as well. If Comrel did not follow the procedures, private admonishment isn't sufficient. You've still punished a dev who will feel the punishment was unfair and that he has been cheated in some way. This outcome will drive developers away and in some cases already has (and I don't mean just the ones on the receiving end of ComRel's decisions). In such cases, ComRel's decision should be reversed, reduced, *something* to show not only the dev in question, but the community at large, that there is a single set of rules and procedures that all abide = by. Anything else just encourages complaints of laziness and or corruption. > exist in the first place, well, hopefully that isn't all there is to > it. Ultimately we're going to be more concerned with whether the CoC > is being followed and is likely to be followed. Again, for the purposes of appeal under the current system, you have to ensure that *all* parties involved have followed the CoC. That includes ComRel as well. Otherwise, more and more people are going to lose faith that the current system works. The more people who lose faith, the more often threads like these well appear, or Gentoo will eventually die because it's losing volunteers faster than it can replace them. >=20 > So, if you appeal a Comrel decision there aren't any magic words to > say. Hiring a better lawyer isn't likely to impress anybody. You > really just need to show that you have changed or are likely to > change. And if you want to be a dev and aren't one yet, just interact > positively with the community and nobody is going to have something to > object to. You don't need to agree with every policy or be afraid of > speaking up when you disagree. However, you do need to try to > maintain a semi-professional attitude and treat people with respect, > and you do need to follow the rules. There are cases where I disagree > with most of the devs and probably the entire Council, and I've voiced > those publicly. However, that doesn't stop me from working > productively with anybody and it isn't personal and I follow the rules > as they've been agreed upon, so I've yet to see anything come of it. > There are devs who are fairly antisocial and they just sit in their > corner doing commits all day, and nobody bothers them either as long > as they follow QA policy. The people who get dragged into the Comrel > process seem to be creating trouble in IRC (on channels, PMs, etc), or > somethings on the mailing lists. Often it is just an > argument/banter/etc that gets out of hand, but instead of just > apologizing and changing they double down and dig in. That is a very > broad generalization and a somewhat ignorant one since I only hear > about cases that are appealed or which become so big that they become > more public knowledge. >=20 > I'm not saying the way that Comrel operates doesn't matter. I'm > certainly not saying that there isn't room for improvement. However, > any changes that get made, and any criticism of how it works, need to > be rooted in the ultimate goal: having a community that follows the > CoC. If the concern is with the CoC itself that is also something > that can be changed, and anybody is free to argue that it isn't right. > However, there isn't going to be some loophole where with the right > argument you can basically mistreat others in the community and get > away with it. Nor is the bar going to be set unreasonably high for > Comrel to deal with people who do so. How do you define "unreasonably high"? If ComRel is going to enforce the CoC, then its members should be setting an example. Council should be held to the same requirements (and possibly a bit higher standard). -Nicholas Vinson >=20 --B5XOl6TKo7xfD9bC1SnEX7N9J5vAa4wML-- --eca8kLdwBjaWKX5FKNWNrAkdmjuQNckWp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX/kF3AAoJEAQpRPZaa5gqYxcP+wYRxnRJDt3HNhCQG7SX421L EuPlWLR/HR3WZX15mWC87UZjlDWleMpQVoOQcurMFzRxqi4olRyshncqNTAOm20F 8bOMtJytxp0H3MPddqDe490qPRc0uFwNzwqLqqv4dUiaDhNNLHz2Uo/3vAIpBBzD N5WMnnV9xlTnKdwbkW2zZu8Pa2rcHrRev2phW4KWvLWyxpmKjqTq3zy7GJtUg13o ATGk76LxnV5LjoF+NwhV4kQAg9SRbmIX4SpFbuLg8izcTPkAJZQOQOJFJHMHil+d +5ISNwB6EGOq3nA+A7uyp6sISeUhkV7I3mg4hgmPOvWs4Sw+7kEukIVEjMltoS6S LhgorpkFv9HBc8nR1TQ/J5ZtwQZL+ApXa+pcnF9++LkBverb1j83UVeiKikKzymE 1wjNjb60YFqPX+FjB1xTB4ShrXpD6PKqqE6IQIznKwMuet9Okf7VDnxz60zk8sP4 sz8mUb1ssdC9bVSgJJrrQKKcRRJ3OP7F2tY5TIu9AigyqfJzg00OVSq1ui3ftiXI SzJTdQwC/91qBb47mWwpUHBFIX0P9h/2RmQP7HYB5cH16YTAzw1Hvh3jKRfT7FME zZpW9qGK+NGNOJSAyeIQ0VKmEXmspPaz/RzCXrulqRrm6O/n+mQy+i02ypwPhQM1 DJ0Ow08ye1iB5dNVBXbm =DgGI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eca8kLdwBjaWKX5FKNWNrAkdmjuQNckWp--