| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 05:27:53PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:04 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Team, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > We are trying to define a solution before the problem(s) we want to solve |
| 6 |
> > has/have been framed. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > What problems, (if any), need to be addressed? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Once problems and potential solutions have been agreed then metrics |
| 11 |
> > can be designed to measure the efficacy (or oherwise) of the solutions. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So what are the perceived problem(s) ? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Potential solutions and metrics are out of scope meanwhile. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> <comrel-hat> |
| 18 |
> Inside of ComRel I see way too much analysis paralysis. Discussion of |
| 19 |
> the most minute details ad infinitum. Endless debate about whether |
| 20 |
> it's more appropriate to use "should" or "needs to" in a response |
| 21 |
> (among three non-native speakers! :D). Large differences in opinion |
| 22 |
> among ComRel members about the efficacy of punishments, about the |
| 23 |
> severity of infractions, etc. Very little cohesion. The aim of the |
| 24 |
> monthly reports, in my view, would be to act as a forcing function to |
| 25 |
> respond more quickly to reports. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> People will be pissed if ComRel bans someone and people will be pissed |
| 28 |
> if ComRel doesn't ban that same someone. That's more or less to be |
| 29 |
> expected. The thing that's missing (in my view) is a sense of |
| 30 |
> legitimacy on the part of ComRel to act on behalf of the greater |
| 31 |
> community. I sense this lack of legitimacy pretty often among |
| 32 |
> developers. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Complaints probably follow the 80/20 rule |
| 35 |
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) (80% of reports are |
| 36 |
> about 20% of people). It's not clear that some of these cases are |
| 37 |
> "solvable" in a way that keeps both the reporter and reportee in the |
| 38 |
> community. How do we balance that? Knowing how devs feel about general |
| 39 |
> questions like this would inform at least me about how I should vote. |
| 40 |
> </comrel-hat> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
As a non-comrel member, I think that at some point you have to act in a |
| 43 |
way that makes things better for the community over-all. If this means |
| 44 |
removing someone, especially someone who generates multiple reports, |
| 45 |
thats unfortunately part of the job. I'm sure comrel is a thankless job, |
| 46 |
but if it isn't done and the hard decisions are not made, the community suffers. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE_SpIdIGK4 |
| 49 |
http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-11-13/brilliant-jerks.html |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Outside of ComRel the problem I've personally had is that reports have |
| 52 |
> been ignored. In fact, one report lead to agreement that a ComRel |
| 53 |
> action should take place and then... nothing. Once ComRel responded |
| 54 |
> again the lead at the time said too much time had passed (~a month) to |
| 55 |
> punish the person now. Extremely frustrating for reporters. I don't |
| 56 |
> think I'm the only one with this sort of experience. (I suggest that |
| 57 |
> we require bugs to be filed -- not emailed to comrel@ -- so they're |
| 58 |
> more easily tracked). |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Agreed, this is very demoralizing. Besides your suggestion of requiring |
| 61 |
bugs to be filed, I would consider a hard timeout of 7-14 days when a |
| 62 |
bug is filed. Once that timeout passes with no action from comrel, the |
| 63 |
bug goes to the council. If this happens too many times (we could |
| 64 |
discuss/agree on a number) it brings the affectiveness of comrel into |
| 65 |
question and the council can take action such as replacing the lead. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Thoughts? |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
William |
Archives