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 6DA2B139085 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84EE4E0EF3; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 54A2EE0EF2 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA8D3340C97 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> <5db6cef2-34b4-6355-0563-9c242b229e08@gentoo.org> From: Dean Stephens Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:29:51 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 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: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: cdff6962-0cc8-4dfa-90dd-8d5bda97af73 X-Archives-Hash: b7d6e0ddd21ebad342aa9c94fca7db85 On 01/16/17 08:22, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 16/01/2017 05:56, Dean Stephens wrote: >> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the >> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual >> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed >> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads >> already in place. >> >> [...] >> >> As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel, >> with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium >> or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple, >> consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while >> minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit >> argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means >> make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not >> discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read >> the documentation. > > Good points. > > IMO the proposal also has good points, and just needs to be updated to > take scalability issues into account. > The proposal is, in a nutshell, to file lots of bugs for the Council and make them the first, last, and only point of appeal. Which effectively makes the role of the Council to try keeping up with scrollback literally everywhere that Gentoo staff/developers have disciplinary authority due to their roles as Gentoo staff/developers; which, to be at all realistic, is just not going to happen. It presents no novel net benefits while incurring novel net costs. In short, the status quo is superior to the proposed model. > Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel. They already do, as do all other disciplinary actions on the forums. The question should not be: "what can be special cased into being allowed to have local handling by those responsible for a communications medium or channel?" If anything, it should be: "what, if anything, should be forced to be handled by people who are not necessarily involved with the medium or channel in question?" To answer the latter with "first pass appeals" serves to increase workloads generally and confusion on the part of those not familiar with the process, though I suppose it would suit functionaries fond of dismissing inquires with a quick "nothing I can do". > I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these. > Which is rather my point: filing the bugs as required by the proposal is pointless, and rather excessive, make work. Disciplinary actions are already documented, either in situ or privately as befits the action(s) taken, and such documentation can be dumped to a suitable bug if and when necessary, but making all such documentation into bugs serves no useful purpose even if fully automated (which it most certainly is not at the moment)... unless the goal is to force Council members to filter their e-mail. > Paweł >