Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP -- New ombudsman position

[Grant Goodyear]

On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 09:18, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > This GLEP proposes that we extend the current proposed management
> > structure by adding a position of Ombudsman that would fall under
> > devrel, qa, and pr.  An ombudsman is one who has been assigned to
> > *impartially* investigate complaints and settle disputes.
>
> Settle how?  Does this position (as proposed) have any power to make
> decisions or is it more intended to try and find a common ground through
> discussions and negotiations?

Replace "settle" with "mediate", as the ombudsman has no actual power
other than persuasion; it's intended entirely to facilitate finding
common ground through discussions and negotiations (good phrase; mind if
I use it?).

> When is it appropriate to use this ombudsman?  How does one contact the
> person?  Are disputes logged and/or public?

In principle it is appropriate to use an ombudsman at any time, which
one can do simply by sending an e-mail to ombudsman@g.o.  A user
who's ticked because her bug has been sitting on bugzilla for three
months can send the ombudsman an e-mail, as can developer Y who's
finally had it w/ developer X changing the ebuilds that Y maintains
without consulting Y first.  The ombudsman's first job is to listen, and
then to try to mediate a solution.

In practice ombudsmen tend not to be overwhelmed because people
generally have to be pretty upset to go to the effort of complaining to
an ombudsman.  Of course, it's just those people who are likely to
create significant havoc if things are allowed to blow up.

All that said, ombudsmen are hardly a panacea, since some disputes
simply cannot be resolved effectively.  Even so, an ombudsman might be
able to mediate so that the parties affected can go their separate ways
_without_ rancor, but maybe not.

As for whether or not disputes should be public or logged, I have my own
thoughts, but I'm willing to go with the prevailing wind on this one. 
My feeling is that disputes should be logged by the ombudsman (it's very
hard to investigate w/o having the facts in front of one, and if the
dispute should recur it would be helpful to have a record of what
happened before), but that they should not be public unless the parties
involved make it public.  

I hope that helps.  Please feel free to be harshly critical, as it's
always possible that there are serious details that I'm missing.

-g2boojum-

PS.  I should note that the role of the ombudsman is to mediate
interpersonal disputes, not policy disputes.  Policy disputes are better
handled by GLEPs, since they really _do_ need to be public.
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>