Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel?

[Alec Warner]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:18 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:24 PM Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure there are times where action may be
> > needed but what it sounds like is needed are more genral definitions of
> > what the relationship between groups should be (how to hand off a high
> > priority item for review/action).
>
> IMO the scope of each is fairly clear-cut, and the few times we've had
> to interact we already have a comrel liason on Proctors.  We really
> only escalate serious repeat offenses/etc, and that basically just
> involves sending them a complaint (much as any dev might), and
> referencing what data we have (which is all public anyway, since
> Proctors only deals with specific incidents that happen in public, and
> not interpersonal issues in general).  There will never be a case
> where a Comrel issue would get referred to Proctors, unless it was
> just misdirected from the start.  If that were the case we'd just have
> them assign us a bug/etc or otherwise ping us.
>

At least in my view the QA / Comrel interaction could use some
improvement. Proctors is *under* comrel so its less contentious I suspect ;)

-A


>
> No harm in writing that down I suppose, but I'm not sure it is worth
> it since I don't see this particular aspect of either group as
> contentious.  Neither group really has special standing with the other
> - when we refer issues to Comrel they basically go into a black hole
> as far as we're concerned - it would be between that dev and Comrel,
> since it wouldn't be a personal conflict issue from our standpoint.
> We could continue to take action on future incidents like we always
> would, and we don't have discretion to do permanent bans/etc.  If
> Comrel issued a long-term ban then there would be no further incidents
> for us to deal with.
>
> While I'm not opposed to a single GLEP for Comrel plus Proctors (or
> maybe even lump QA in there - there are potentially some common
> elements like confirming leads), I'm not sure if that actually makes
> things simpler.  IMO Comrel is more about dealing with people, and
> Proctors is more about dealing with their specific posts/etc without
> passing judgment on the individuals long-term fit in the community.
> Proctors actions are definitely not intended to be punitive even if
> they're bans - it is more about cooling down, bringing attention to
> the CoC, and so on, and all bans are relatively short and
> auto-reinstated with no further follow-up.  We also generally have
> been avoiding being ban-heavy (well, aside from that spam a while ago)
> and I'd like to see guidelines published further explaining our goals.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>