Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[NP-Hardass]

On 10/06/2016 08:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
>>> (Targeting one specific comment here)
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to
>>>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create
>>>> trouble.
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general?
>>
>> I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to
>> return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel
>> action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here,
>> again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has
>> been publicly posted here).
>>
>>>
>>> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new
>>> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]:
>>>
>>
>> They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs.
>>
>>>
>>> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement
>>> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still
>>> relevant.
>>
>> Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I
>> couldn't comment.  Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what
>> happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules.
>> Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a
>> candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the
>> Council.  From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion
>> the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight
>> years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up.
>
> On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept
> secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out
> about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or
> merely misunderstandings?
Anonymous statistics as already proposed work to show the general trend
of action by ComRel, and if a person feels that they have been unjustly
treated by ComRel, they have the right to appeal to ComRel and the
Council.  Like a court system.  You appeal to the next higher level
until you hit the top, if you truly believe that the decision against
you was unjust.    Minor ComRel incident->Full ComRel incident->Council
review->(legal issues)->Trustees
>
> One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine
> Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only
> share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; for
> transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior.
ComRel is directly accountable to Council.  The only concern is if you
don't trust either body.  Effectively, if you don't trust any of the
ruling bodies of Gentoo, I am not sure what your choices are, but that
means either you are off base, or there is something truly rotten in
Denmark (and I'm inclined to believe that we are NOT currently in that
situation).
>
> I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot speak
> about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only
> view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end of it.
>>
>>> As a case study, who else has had to appeal Comrel or the
>>> Council to rejoin Gentoo?
>>
>> I doubt that anybody could give you the "who" if there was anybody,
>> again due to privacy.  They could speak to how many, and I can say
>> that I've seen all of two Comrel-related appeals in the entire time
>> I've been on Council (which is a few years now), and none from
>> prospective devs.  So, I imagine this is pretty rare.  There aren't
>> many devs who have been kicked out in general, and I imagine only a
>> small fraction attempt to return.  Very few even appeal being kicked
>> out in the first place.
>>
>>>
>>> I think organizationally that each project deserves equal scrutiny into
>>> its workings and whether or not they are improving Gentoo as a whole.
>>> That includes Comrel and arguably *any* project within Gentoo, imo.
>>>
>>
>> Hence the reason I opened the discussion threads on aspects of how
>> Comrel operates...
>
> Thanks for doing that. Judging from the multitude of e-mails and
> responses, it's clearly something that has created poor situations and I
> hope we're able to move forward to resolutions.
>>
>>>
>>> As usual, this is just my two cents, offered only because I hope I would
>>> not be treated this way if I were to come back to Gentoo after leaving.
>>> (That said, I have no current plans of leaving Gentoo. It's just
>>> something to think about.) Thanks for reading.
>>>
>>
>> Devs who leave without pending Comrel complaints are not subject to
>> any unusual process when they return, as far as I'm aware.  Devs who
>> had complaints just need to work with Comrel, and the fact that they
>> had a past issue is not generally disclosed unless they choose to
>> start a mailing list thread on the topic...
>>
>
> As a side note, why do we have Comrel if we're all expected to act like
> adults? Adults solve problems by communicating, and having an opaque
> group mediate conflicts doesn't strike me as ideal. If two people have
> trouble and cannot solve it, they go their separate ways or learn to
> work past their differences.
And what do you do when one person decides to continue to harass
another, despite another person trying to move on?  You have to have
some sort of mediation with a third party when things break down in bad
scenarios.  What are you going to do if a developer starts sexually
harassing another?  Are you going to expect that the person is just
going to stop?  And what if they don't?  That's why ComRel exists.  As
they say, you try to handle the issues on your own first, and if that
fails, then you escalate to ComRel, who attempts to mediate, if
mediation fails, then it may escalate to official action.  ComRel is not
running around with a ban hammer beating people up left and right.
>
> Leadership requires accountability. Trustees and the Council have some
> degree of accountability, and can be removed from their positions as the
> developer community pleases. With a group as influential as Comrel, I
> would expect some level of accountability and responsibility. If we're
> going to trust a group with what's essentially HR, their decisions
> should be backed by an accountable person or group, such as the Council
> (or a similar group within Comrel that answers to the community).
It's the case with all representative governments.   You elect some
officials who appoint others.   If you don't like their choices, you
speak to them, or vote for someone else.
>
> In that vein, I believe that if Comrel is responsible for a particularly
> unpopular or otherwise disruptive change, they should be held
> accountable for it, including finding "replacements" or filling the
> holes left by the developer(s) they may take action against.
How do they do that?  They can't force another developer to take their
place, nor can they suddenly will up other developers into existence
(which still has the force issue)
>
> Additionally, we should think about conflicts of interest. Should we let
> people act on both the Council and in Comrel? I recall certain
> situations call for council members to abstain from certain votes. Is
> that true of matters involving Comrel as well? QA? There are multiple
> "pits" of power, and I think we as a project should do what we can to
> ensure that powers between groups don't become imbalanced as one or a
> small group consolidate power among themselves and use it as a weapon.
>
Now, as far as conflict of interest is concerned, since the appeal of a
ComRel issue is a Council appeal, I think that a conflict of interest
warrants special attention.   Whether we are best with a policy
preventing holding both positions, or forcing someone to recuse
themselves, I think we'd probably benefit from either.
> I digress, though. Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I have a
> better idea of what you're talking about now.
>


-- 
NP-Hardass