1 |
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 07:29:37PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:12 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> >> Appeals sometimes reverse decisions because these lower groups are |
5 |
> >> imperfect at enacting the policies set at the top, or they are |
6 |
> >> operating in areas where no precedent exists. These reversals |
7 |
> >> shouldn't be seen as some kind of checks/balances system that adds |
8 |
> >> value, but an inefficiency that wastes time deliberating matters more |
9 |
> >> than once. It is necessary only because it would be even more |
10 |
> >> inefficient to slow everything down to a pace where one small group |
11 |
> >> could deal with it all. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I agree that the higher body should not be involved in every case; |
14 |
> > However, I absolutely do not agree that appeals are not a |
15 |
> > checks/balances system. If someone appeals something it means that they |
16 |
> > feel that the decision made by the lower body needs to be re-examined. |
17 |
> > If the higher body then overrules the lower body, it isn't meant in a |
18 |
> > shameful way, it is just guidance for the lower body in the future. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Checks and balances are when two bodies are allowed to be in |
21 |
> opposition, with neither body being superior to the other. In the US |
22 |
> system the three federal branches operate in this way for the most |
23 |
> part, with each branch able to block certain actions of the others. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> An appeal isn't a check and balance. An appeal is a superior body |
26 |
> having the opportunity to overrule the action of an inferior one. |
27 |
|
28 |
Ok, this makes sense, but my point still holds. |
29 |
|
30 |
If enough of the members of the inferior body are members and able to |
31 |
vote on the appeal in the superior body, there is no reason for anyone |
32 |
to appeal, and if we are going to do that, we should kill the ability |
33 |
to appeal entirely. |
34 |
|
35 |
> > |
36 |
> >> So, if there were no QA or comrel, and there were just the council, |
37 |
> >> and it handled everything and there were no appeals at all, this would |
38 |
> >> not lower the quality of decisions, but it would actually raise them |
39 |
> >> (since some incorrect decisions might not be appealed). However, it |
40 |
> >> would come at a cost of a lot less stuff getting done since you'd have |
41 |
> >> reducing the pool of labor. |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > Rich, I don't follow this logic at all. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> What is confusing about it? Imagine that the Council dissolved both |
46 |
> QA and Comrel, and directly handled both? The main issue with this is |
47 |
> that stuff would probably get neglected, but ultimately it is the same |
48 |
> body that is making the final decisions. |
49 |
|
50 |
This still doesn't make sense. |
51 |
|
52 |
Another thing to consider is, |
53 |
Comrel and QA members are already expected to recuse themselves from voting on |
54 |
appeals from their projects at the council level. This means the council |
55 |
that votes on appeals is different than the council that votes on other issues. |
56 |
Also, council members are allowed to abstain from votes, and this |
57 |
shrinks the voting pool further. |
58 |
|
59 |
> > I know about the appellate courts, but there are other levels as well. |
60 |
> > You would never find a district courte judge on an appellate court |
61 |
> > simultaneously, and you would never find an appellate court judge or |
62 |
> > district courte judge serving simultaneously as a justice on the Supreme Court. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> As far as I am aware there is no provision in US law that prevents |
65 |
> this. It is just impractical, and would defeat the point of |
66 |
> delegation. |
67 |
|
68 |
Do there have to be laws that prevent it? There are no laws that |
69 |
prevent it, but it doesn't happen. If someone did try this, I'm sure |
70 |
they would be shot down because of the perceived conflict. |
71 |
|
72 |
> As I recall there have been complaints made on the lists that the |
73 |
> leaders on the Council need to do more to fix problems actively vs |
74 |
> just waiting for people to come to them for decisions. |
75 |
|
76 |
This topic deserves a totally separate thread, but I will say here that it |
77 |
depends on how you feel about how Gentoo should be lead. Some have said |
78 |
that the council should be treated more like a dispute resolutions body |
79 |
than a leadership body. I have heard a lot of talk about how innovation |
80 |
comes from the developers and the council should stay out of the way |
81 |
until a decision is requested from the community. |
82 |
|
83 |
> I think this |
84 |
> is the main reason why Council members ended up in lead roles on other |
85 |
> projects. Some project was considered to need help, and a Council |
86 |
> member stepped into try to strengthen it. I'd be careful about |
87 |
> banning this sort of practice, because then the only thing the Council |
88 |
> could do if Comrel or QA were inactive would be to whine about it on |
89 |
> the lists until somebody else stepped up to fix things. |
90 |
|
91 |
Don't even get me started. ;-) |
92 |
|
93 |
> In any case, that's my opinion. I suspect it might not be a majority |
94 |
> opinion and that is OK. The world won't end if a few more critical |
95 |
> Gentoo projects go idle... |
96 |
|
97 |
This is also a completely separate subject, but imo there are several |
98 |
critical tlps that are idle. |
99 |
|
100 |
William |