| 1 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 09:01:54 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure |
| 7 |
> for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to our |
| 8 |
> wiki page. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution (or |
| 11 |
> post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance, |
| 12 |
> and Council being the second. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Full proposed policy, with rationale: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel. |
| 18 |
> The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable to |
| 21 |
> make it the first appeal instance. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month before |
| 25 |
> planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third- |
| 26 |
> mail). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would |
| 29 |
> not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity). Undertakers |
| 30 |
> recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to |
| 31 |
> confirm that someone's retirement is still pending. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. |
| 35 |
> If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired |
| 36 |
> throughout the appeal process. The appeal process is finished if |
| 37 |
> either: |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> a. the Council issues final decision, |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days, |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> c. both sides agree not to appeal further. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring |
| 46 |
> (then maybe retiring again). |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between |
| 50 |
> Undertakers and developers. It is not a replacement for communicating |
| 51 |
> with Undertakers. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to |
| 54 |
> resolve it between us. For example, if we missed something, then you |
| 55 |
> should tell us rather than calling for appeal. However, if we do |
| 56 |
> disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is |
| 57 |
> something you can appeal. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on existing |
| 61 |
> policies. While it may influence future policies, those need to be |
| 62 |
> carried out via appropriate policy making channels. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently. If a policy |
| 65 |
> needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review. |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> WDYT? |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Thanks for noticing this gap and addressing it. Given recent events |
| 71 |
though, we must also review the wording used in regular undertaker |
| 72 |
correspondence and also the process, if necessary, to avoid things |
| 73 |
getting to this point in the first place. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 77 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives