| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:02 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 13/02/18 04:58, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 02/12/18 11:55, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> Hi Daniel, |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:53:24AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>> How about if they just abstain from any votes where there may be a |
| 9 |
> conflict |
| 10 |
> >>> of interest? I would hate to limit the ability of people to contribute |
| 11 |
> >>> technically just because they were elected to council. |
| 12 |
> >> The confusing thing about this is, how would we define "conflict of |
| 13 |
> >> interest"? |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it |
| 16 |
> >> a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member |
| 17 |
> >> of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty |
| 18 |
> >> strong perception that it is. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> > Why? How? Exactly what sort of conflicting interest is supposed to be |
| 21 |
> > present? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> There seems to be two divergent schools of thinking here: |
| 24 |
> 1) Those that think that there is, or could be, (potential for) a |
| 25 |
> conflict of interest, |
| 26 |
> and 2) Those that cannot conceive there even could be a conflict of |
| 27 |
> interest. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm not aware of anyone advocating for case two (not even Rich! :)) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I think it would be useful for both sides to state their cases, and |
| 35 |
> perhaps this particular issue could have its bike-shed painted once, and |
| 36 |
> for good..... |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
Ultimately this comes down to a discussion about whether potential |
| 40 |
conflicts are allowed or not. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
In some fields (law, or finance for example) there are rules against having |
| 43 |
even potential conflicts. Should Gentoo emulate those rules and produce an |
| 44 |
organization that avoids even the appearance of conflict? In other fields, |
| 45 |
potential conflicts are allowed. There tend to be policies about disclosing |
| 46 |
conflicts (disclosure is typically encouraged here.) Organizations can use |
| 47 |
the disclosures to put in appropriate controls. To use an example: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
A council member is on a team (not even necessarily QA / Comrel). That |
| 50 |
team's lead makes a decision. The council member doesn't agree with the |
| 51 |
decision and appeals to council. |
| 52 |
I would argue the member raising the issue has a conflict and they should |
| 53 |
not vote (recuse / abstain). |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
If you believe the above premise, even if we take William's patch, its |
| 56 |
clear we cannot eliminate conflicts of interest among Gentoo Leadership |
| 57 |
(e.g. the above example is a conflict; but it isn't resolved by William's |
| 58 |
patch.) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
I'm also not clear on the problem statement. William's opener was: "I have |
| 61 |
felt this way for a long time, because I think it compromises the full |
| 62 |
council's |
| 63 |
ability to vote fairly on appeals." So it seems that the problem statement |
| 64 |
is about appeals being fair (or appearing fair, or feeling fair?) Maybe we |
| 65 |
could discuss Appeals specifically; and how they appear or make people |
| 66 |
feel. I'm not sure I have a better idea of 'fairness' than just soliciting |
| 67 |
feedback. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-A |
Archives