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

[Raymond Jennings]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:54 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> 
wrote:
> 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.

Speaking of a conflict of interest, I would like to point out for the 
record that devrel and userrel were aliased as "proctors" in previous 
documentation.

The same documentation also forbade council members from also being 
proctors, specifically to avoid such a conflict of interest.

If we want to establish (or more accurately, revive) such a policy, I 
feel it is noteworthy that such a policy already has precedent in 
Gentoo itself.

>
>>  I digress, though. Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I have a
>>  better idea of what you're talking about now.
>>
>
>
> --
> NP-Hardass
>