Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 9:16 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 07:29:37PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Checks and balances are when two bodies are allowed to be in
>> opposition, with neither body being superior to the other.  In the US
>> system the three federal branches operate in this way for the most
>> part, with each branch able to block certain actions of the others.
>>
>> An appeal isn't a check and balance.  An appeal is a superior body
>> having the opportunity to overrule the action of an inferior one.
>
> Ok, this makes sense, but my point still holds.
>
> If enough of the members of the inferior body are members and able to
> vote on the appeal in the superior body, there is no reason for anyone
> to appeal, and if we are going to do that, we should kill the ability
> to appeal entirely.

If there is no reason for anyone to appeal then the original body is
functioning as intended.  There is no need to eliminate the ability to
appeal, because sometimes it might be necessary.

>>
>> What is confusing about it?  Imagine that the Council dissolved both
>> QA and Comrel, and directly handled both?  The main issue with this is
>> that stuff would probably get neglected, but ultimately it is the same
>> body that is making the final decisions.
>
>  This still doesn't make sense.

You need to elaborate, unless that is what the next paragraph is.

Do you think that the Council would not make the correct decision with
regard to an issue currently brought before QA or Comrel if those
bodies were dissolved?  If so, then why allow them to hear appeals?

> Another thing to consider is,
> Comrel and QA members are already expected to recuse themselves from voting on
> appeals from their projects at the council level.

While this has happened the last few times this has come up, I don't
believe it is a documented policy, and IMO it is a mistake for anybody
to recuse themselves from a decision unless they feel they are not
qualified to handle it or there is a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is not having an opinion on something, either
stated or otherwise.  A conflict of interest is when a decision that
would benefit Gentoo might be personally detrimental.  For example,
letting somebody set their own salary is a conflict of interest
because it is in the employer's interest to minimize salary and in the
individual's interest to maximize it.  Hearing an appeal of your own
case would probably also be a conflict of interest, assuming you were
directly involved in the case (which is usually the case when you
bring forth a case).

However, in the past the Council members who were on Comrel disagreed
with this and recused themselves.  They can do that, but I think it is
harmful.  I'm sure many reading my email think that my approach would
be harmful.  That's ok - it is fine if a majority of Gentoo devs are
wrong on something.  :)

>> As far as I am aware there is no provision in US law that prevents
>> this.  It is just impractical, and would defeat the point of
>> delegation.
>
>  Do there have to be laws that prevent it? There are no laws that
>  prevent it, but it doesn't happen. If someone did try this, I'm sure
>  they would be shot down because of the perceived conflict.

What conflict exists?  People keep using this word in situations where
it doesn't legally apply.

If a conflict of interest exists you should be able to clearly state
what the two interests are.  In what way is a judge harmed by their
decision being overturned?  This isn't something judges are
disciplined for (though if they ignore previous precedent that is
another matter).

Likewise, in what way does the head of Comrel suffer personal harm if
a decision they made in private is overturned in private?  They don't
even have a reputation at stake.  What motive would they have to stick
to their original decision if a new argument came up that might
otherwise persuade them if they hadn't made the original decision?

>> As I recall there have been complaints made on the lists that the
>> leaders on the Council need to do more to fix problems actively vs
>> just waiting for people to come to them for decisions.
>
> This topic deserves a totally separate thread, but I will say here that it
> depends on how you feel about how Gentoo should be lead. Some have said
> that the council should be treated more like a dispute resolutions body
> than a leadership body. I have heard a lot of talk about how innovation
> comes from the developers and the council should stay out of the way
> until a decision is requested from the community.

When acting in their role on the Council I agree.  However, Council
members are still developers, and they're allowed to wear multiple
hats.

>
> This is also a completely separate subject, but imo there are several
> critical tlps that are idle.
>

Well, I hope you realize that any decision made by any project could
be appealed to the Council, since that is basically what the council
was invented for in GLEP 39, so I seriously hope you don't plan to
contribute to fixing any of those...  :)

-- 
Rich