Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel?

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:02 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Given the amount of discussion GLEP 48 update brought, I'd like to
> tackle a semi-related topic: wouldn't it be beneficial to have the role
> and policies of ComRel solidified in a GLEP, and officially stamped
> by the Council this way?
>

I'd be excited to see a GLEP to outline the purpose of the Comrel team and
its role. I'm less happy to codify the policies in the GLEP. I'd argue that
most policies should be decided at the team level (not the council level).
GLEP48 itself is kind of a mix of "here is what we think the QA team should
be doing" and policies "the QA team will fix typos, etc." I'd perhaps
advocate for stronger guidance on separating these concerns.

To use an example from our IRC conversation. Rich suggested the Comrel GLEP
should contain some kind of wording for privacy expectations. I agree that
it should, but I'm not sure it should exactly specify. It might be
sufficient to say:

[Proctors]
You should have no privacy expectation for conversations with the Proctors
team, assume all conversations are public.

[Comrel]
Conversations with Comrel are confidential, but may become non-confidential
under (some circumstances){LINK_TO_POLICY_DOCUMENT}.

Note that I don't intend for this to mean the council cannot have a say in
team policies, but I think it should be more reactionary (users report bad
policies, council investigates and takes action) and less proactive
(council reviews and approves all policies.) I think if the latter was to
happen, you'd need some faster way to get the a council to review and
approve things. Like in Infra (another team where a charter might be
worthwhile) I'm not sure the council approving our policies adds much.

-A


>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>