Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2016 04:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
>> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
>> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
>> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
>> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
>> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
>
> I'm not following this logic.  Are you defining independence as also
> being equals?  The appeals courts don't manage the lower courts in the
> same way a company manages its employees.

My understanding is that in most courts higher courts are able to
discipline the members of lower courts.  If a lower court doesn't
follow the precedence of a higher court, the lower court membership
can be adjusted to one that will.  This is often the case even when
the lower court members are elected, but election of judges tends to
cause many problems.

> And while it may not be
> universally true in the US, if a lower court decides someone is not
> guilty (or a jury for that court does), then it's over.  The appeals
> court opinion is moot.

I don't think this is true.  I believe the prosecution is allowed to
appeal decisions.  An appeal doesn't constitute double jeopardy.  Now,
many of these decisions are findings of fact for which appeals courts
tend to not pay much attention, but that doesn't mean that there was
no opportunity for appeal.

>>
>> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
>> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
>> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
>> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
>> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
>> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
>> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
>
> This is a good thing.  Should you really have to worry so much about
> what you say in emails, forum posts, IRC channels, so you don't offend
> anyone and risk them reporting you and then you getting an X duration ban?

You won't be expelled for offending somebody.  You'll be expelled for
demonstrating a persistent inability to follow the code of conduct.
If you're about to do something that violates the CoC, then of course
the possibility of enforcement should give you pause.

>
> Like it or not, there are going to be conflicting opinions and
> discussions on those opinions will sometimes get heated and on occasion
> complaints will be filed because emotions have taken over, but none of
> that is justification for ComRel to intervene.
>

Of course.  I'm not suggesting that Comrel should resolve every issue
in an expulsion.  And if somebody feels that Comrel didn't go far
enough I do think they should have the same right of appeal as
somebody who feels they went to far, but that doesn't mean that the
Council has to agree with them.

> There's nothing
> positive of going to someone out-of-the-blue and saying "We received
> complaints about you, we agreed with the complaints, so here's what your
> punishment is.  Don't like it file an appeal".

In the few appeals I've seen, this was not the approach Comrel took.
They would be overturned on appeal a lot more often if that were the
case.

> I don't recall anyone suggesting that comrel become independent of the
> council.  What I have seen and personally suggested was that comrel
> membership be voted in by the full Gentoo dev community just as the
> council is.  Everything would remain the same.  That means ComRel is
> still overseen by the Council and anyone who doesn't agree with a ComRel
> decision can appeal.

If Comrel were independently elected, then it is effectively
independent of the Council.  Sure, decisions could be appealed, but
short of overturning 100% of their decisions the Council would have no
power to change how Comrel operates.  And if we went with the appeals
policy you advocated if Council felt that not enough people were
getting kicked out it would have no ability to change that at all,
since there would be nothing to appeal.

Any body that is elected has its own mandate.  The Council has a
mandate.  The Trustees have a mandate.  That means the Council can do
something and say "screw you, this is what the devs want" to the
Trustees.  Then the Trustees can do something else and say "screw you,
this is what the Foundation members want" to the Council.  That isn't
productive.  It makes far more sense to have one version of "what the
community wants" with one definition of "the community."  I really
don't want to pattern Gentoo after the US checks-and-balances system
which tends to end up just being a lot of stalemate with every branch
basically trying to do an end-run around the intended process because
everybody has their own mandate and does not agree.

> Comrel isn't a normal project, it has the ability to significantly
> affect Gentoo as a whole.  The council has the same ability.  I see
> little wisdom in letting people join ComRel without a vetting from the
> greater community when when Council members are required to go through
> such a vetting process.

I think it makes far more sense to have Comrel vetted by the Council.
If you don't trust somebody to be wielding that power, you shouldn't
put them on the Council.

-- 
Rich