Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:22:01
Message-Id: f5ce6280-0e05-ffda-9232-6b9312961dc9@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans) by "Michał Górny"
1 On 7/24/20 4:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Hi,
3 >
4 > TL;DR: the current punishment-based disciplinary (ComRel/QA) model
5 > doesn't work very well. Most of the time it is tedious and results
6 > in a ban that doesn't solve anything, and effectively ends up being
7 > harmful to users (as a third party). I would like to discuss replacing
8 > it with a model that focuses on improvement and making amends.
9
10 Sometimes I wish I was banned, so I could keep a two week vacation from
11 any Gentoo related work with good conscience. It's getting pretty
12 stressful with ever-increasing checks, and you need to reserve ~30
13 minutes to get a clean CI run after anything you've committed.
14
15 Of course these checks assure a much better user experience, but it's
16 mentally straining on this end.
17
18 And no, QA is not a monster. I'm not aware of any unjustified bans.
19
20
21 > Now, if the developer deliberately refuses to make amends, then I think
22 > we shouldn't play cat-and-mouse any longer and immediately go for
23 > retirement. Of course, with possibility of appeal to the Council
24 > and the usual rights but without the 'N bans' game before it.
25
26 What if this genuinely happened:
27
28
29 > QA: developer X, please follow the standards.
30 > [silence]
31 > QA: developer X, ping.
32 > [silence]
33 > QA: developer X, please answer or else...
34 > [silence]
35 > QA: developer X, we issue official warning.
36 > [*shrug*]
37 > <a few warnings later>
38 > QA: we issue 14 day ban for developer X.
39 > dev X: bad QA! I never got any warnings! They didn't really try to
40 > reach out! [to users] I'm sorry, this guy has banned me so I can't bump
41 > Y, it's all their fault.
42 >
43 I'm fine with your solution, retiring the dev if they refuse to
44 co-operate. However I'd like to see a full pseudo-example here what
45 happens before the retirement by Comrel/QA. A list of all steps. And by
46 this time, I'd say to have 1 strike before retirement, with a cooldown
47 of say 1-2 years. Just to eradicate any human errors from the process,
48 and I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance.
49
50 (Does this need to be GLEPd)?
51
52 -- juippis

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies