1 |
On 2019.09.21 08:01, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, everyone. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure |
5 |
> for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to |
6 |
> our |
7 |
> wiki page. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution |
10 |
> (or |
11 |
> post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance, |
12 |
> and Council being the second. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Full proposed policy, with rationale: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel. |
18 |
> The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable |
21 |
> to |
22 |
> make it the first appeal instance. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month |
26 |
> before |
27 |
> planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third- |
28 |
> mail). |
29 |
> |
30 |
> R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would |
31 |
> not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity). |
32 |
> Undertakers |
33 |
> recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to |
34 |
> confirm that someone's retirement is still pending. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> |
37 |
> 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired |
40 |
> throughout the appeal process. The appeal process is finished if |
41 |
> either: |
42 |
> |
43 |
> a. the Council issues final decision, |
44 |
> |
45 |
> b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days, |
46 |
> |
47 |
> c. both sides agree not to appeal further. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring |
50 |
> (then maybe retiring again). |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
> 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between |
54 |
> Undertakers and developers. It is not a replacement for communicating |
55 |
> with Undertakers. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to |
58 |
> resolve it between us. For example, if we missed something, then you |
59 |
> should tell us rather than calling for appeal. However, if we do |
60 |
> disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is |
61 |
> something you can appeal. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |
64 |
> 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on |
65 |
> existing |
66 |
> policies. While it may influence future policies, those need to be |
67 |
> carried out via appropriate policy making channels. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently. If a |
70 |
> policy |
71 |
> needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> |
74 |
> WDYT? |
75 |
> |
76 |
> -- |
77 |
> Best regards, |
78 |
> Michał Górny |
79 |
> |
80 |
> |
81 |
|
82 |
Michał, |
83 |
|
84 |
Looks good. It also looks like the standard process so does it |
85 |
need to be documented explicitly on the Undertakers page? |
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
Regards, |
89 |
|
90 |
Roy Bamford |
91 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
92 |
elections |
93 |
gentoo-ops |
94 |
forum-mods |
95 |
arm64 |