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

[Nick Vinson]

On 10/07/2016 08:09 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 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.

Criminal Case. The defendant may appeal a guilty verdict, but the
government may not appeal if a defendant is found not guilty. Either
side in a criminal case may appeal with respect to the sentence that is
imposed after a guilty verdict.

Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals

So in short, if you are found not-guilty in a lower court it's over.
There's nothing more the US government can do.

>
>>>
>>> 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.
>