1 |
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the |
4 |
> team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification: |
5 |
> "The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping |
6 |
> the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and |
7 |
> pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct |
8 |
> action." |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
I would suggest that if for whatever reason we do want to impose |
12 |
further restrictions on Comrel membership, that we consider that these |
13 |
may not be as necessary for QA membership. |
14 |
|
15 |
A key difference between the two groups is that as far as I'm aware |
16 |
all QA actions are completely public. If there is an issue everybody |
17 |
can see that it exists, and take whatever action needed to correct it. |
18 |
|
19 |
With Comrel there is more of a need to trust the individuals involved, |
20 |
since the proceedings are not as transparent. |
21 |
|
22 |
One thing I would suggest doing in general is to apply the same rules |
23 |
to the Comrel lead as to the QA lead: |
24 |
|
25 |
* The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or |
26 |
public election among the members of the team, and confirmed by the |
27 |
council. The QA team lead can choose one member as a deputy. The |
28 |
deputy has all of his powers directly delegated from the QA team lead |
29 |
and thus his actions and decisions should be considered equal to those |
30 |
of the QA team lead. The deputy is directly responsible only to the QA |
31 |
team lead. |
32 |
|
33 |
* The QA lead's term expires one year after confirmation, and during |
34 |
any period that the position is vacant the council may appoint an |
35 |
interim lead. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
Applying the same rules to Comrel would give it a bit more of a |
39 |
mandate, though if the goal is some kind of independence from the |
40 |
Council this policy would in fact reduce it. I personally don't like |
41 |
having multiple leadership teams in Gentoo that do not have any kind |
42 |
of hierarchy, because it can lead to sustained conflict. So, given a |
43 |
choice of a directly-elected Comrel or a Comrel appointed by Council |
44 |
I'd prefer the latter. |
45 |
|
46 |
Part of me wonders if a lot of this debate is really a proxy for a |
47 |
different debate: whether Comrel ought to be more or less active. If |
48 |
you're a fan of Comrel being less active then you'd want a Comrel and |
49 |
Council that largely disagreed, because it meant that any action taken |
50 |
by the one would probably be undone by the other, and to the degree |
51 |
that members of one can't serve on the other causes manpower issues, |
52 |
so much the better. If you're a fan of Comrel being more active then |
53 |
you'd want to ensure that only seriously flawed actions get undone, |
54 |
and you would want to ensure that Comrel is well-manned. |
55 |
|
56 |
Finally, I'd just like to note that as far as I'm aware there have |
57 |
only been two appeals of Comrel decisions in the time I served on the |
58 |
council (a number of years) and in both cases the decisions were |
59 |
upheld despite all Comrel members recusing themselves from votes. |
60 |
Comrel actions historically have been rare, and recusal vs non-recusal |
61 |
wouldn't have made any difference (to do so the Comrel members would |
62 |
have had to have voted against the previous Comrel decisions). That |
63 |
isn't necessarily a reason to not have this discussion, but IMO in |
64 |
practice this hasn't been much of a historical problem. |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
Rich |