| 1 |
On 2016.11.09 22:41, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Since council do not appear to monitor comrel, how does council know |
| 6 |
> > that they are doing a good job, or indeed that comrel is still |
| 7 |
> active? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'll agree that the current system relies on people who feel that |
| 11 |
> Comrel isn't doing a good job to appeal their cases to the Council. I |
| 12 |
> completely support making changes to have more oversight of what is |
| 13 |
> going on. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Nobody knows if comrel are doing a good job or not. That's the core |
| 16 |
issue. Appeals are far too late in the process and too infrequent to |
| 17 |
determine that. Its the community that need to be convinced too, |
| 18 |
not council nor the body of developers. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> However, it is probably worth noting that in the two cases that seem |
| 22 |
> to have stirred up the pot, the Council DID exercise direct oversight |
| 23 |
> on one of them, and in the other the person impacted has stated on the |
| 24 |
> list that they do not believe that the Council would reverse the |
| 25 |
> Comrel decisions, though they have not actually appealed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Oversight is something that is exercised continuously/frequently, not |
| 28 |
after the event. It's oversight that ensures that decisions when they |
| 29 |
are reached are supported rather than questioned by the community |
| 30 |
because the team making the decisions are monitored by a body elected |
| 31 |
by the community. If the community don't trust the elected body to do a |
| 32 |
good job, they can vote them out. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
None of this suggests that improved oversight would have changed |
| 35 |
any decisions. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> So, while I think some steps to have a bit more oversight are |
| 39 |
> warranted, I'm really not expecting it to lead to any drastic |
| 40 |
> revelations. It isn't like Comrel is detaining people in Gitmo. If |
| 41 |
> there was some trend of inappropriate action I'm pretty sure those |
| 42 |
> impacted would find a way to make their concerns known. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
They would just not apply to become Gentoo devs. Maybe start a |
| 45 |
project of their own ... |
| 46 |
Community here, includes anyone who contributes to Gentoo. |
| 47 |
I don't share your confidence that many of them would make their |
| 48 |
concerns known, they would just go away ... path of least |
| 49 |
resistance. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> In the last |
| 53 |
> month I've also heard expressed a desire both for Comrel to take more |
| 54 |
> action to enforce the CoC, and for Comrel to take less. The obvious |
| 55 |
> pattern seems to be that when somebody is the one action is being |
| 56 |
> taken against they tend to argue for less, and when somebody feels |
| 57 |
> that somebody else is bothering them, they tend to call for more. We |
| 58 |
> had a recent appeal by somebody who was concerned that Comrel wasn't |
| 59 |
> doing enough to take action against somebody, and the outcome at that |
| 60 |
> time was that the Council felt that not enough time had elapsed for |
| 61 |
> escalation to be warranted. However, that brings up a fundamental |
| 62 |
> problem with this sort of function, as with any other part of Gentoo |
| 63 |
> it is volunteer based, and so people are going to be frustrated when |
| 64 |
> the process moves slowly. Certainly we should expect Comrel cases to |
| 65 |
> be closed in an efficient manner just as we should expect package |
| 66 |
> stable requests to be handled in an efficient manner, but the |
| 67 |
> realities of having a volunteer-based system do collide with that. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
We are not discussing individual cases nor outcomes. Its the |
| 70 |
community confidence in the way the process is set up and operated. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
In the early days, there were three projects doing what comrel does now. |
| 73 |
Briefly, four. That visible separation helped inspire confidence in the |
| 74 |
individual parts. |
| 75 |
With the mergers, that confidence has been eroded. Meanwhile, no |
| 76 |
new confidence maintaining measures have been put in place. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
> |
| 79 |
> Personally my sense is that some quick wins that could be taken to |
| 80 |
> increase Comrel oversight short of any huge structural changes would |
| 81 |
> be: |
| 82 |
> 1. Have the Comrel lead approved by Council in the same manner that |
| 83 |
> QA is, and the ability for Council to appoint interim leads when a |
| 84 |
> confirmed lead doesn't exist. |
| 85 |
> 2. Ask Comrel to continue to publish anonymous stats on their |
| 86 |
> activity level in general. |
| 87 |
> |
| 88 |
> I'm not suggesting this will fix everything, but it would be a start. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
Agreed, it a start. |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
> |
| 93 |
> -- |
| 94 |
> Rich |
| 95 |
> |
| 96 |
> |
| 97 |
|
| 98 |
-- |
| 99 |
Regards, |
| 100 |
|
| 101 |
Roy Bamford |
| 102 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 103 |
elections |
| 104 |
gentoo-ops |
| 105 |
forum-mods |
Archives