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

[Nick Vinson]

On 10/07/2016 04:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:57 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
>> Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to the
>> initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that lead
>> to the initial decision was valid and correct.
>>
>
> It seems far more important to me that the purpose is to confirm
> whether the underlying complaint is valid, and whether the action
> taken by Comrel was appropriate.  If the procedures/logic were flawed
> that seems more like a refinement.
>
> If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
> turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
> better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
> again correctly this time?
>
> When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
> it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.  We don't arbitrarily
> revert the commit without thinking about the pros and cons of doing
> this vs fixing the problem in some other way.  Sometimes a reversion
> is appropriate solution, but sometimes the right solution is to move
> things forward to a better state.  Ultimately we need to be concerned
> with the user experience.
>
> In the same way we need to be concerned with the community experience.
> Sometimes overturning a comrel decision might be the right move, but
> sometimes it might just need a nudge in the right direction, or no
> change at all as far as the outcome goes, even if something went wrong
> along the way.  Doing otherwise just leads to lawyering where we argue
> over the process completely ignoring the reason why Comrel is
> necessary in the first place.
>
>> The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
>> appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
>> against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in an
>> appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council member is
>> a ComRel member.
>
> That makes sense.
>
>> Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
>> individual.
>
> I don't see this as bias, though bias has many definitions.  Typically
> bias implies some kind of unfairness.  A fully-informed decision isn't
> bias.
>
>>
>> Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence is
>> being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
>> imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
>> Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
>> "Impartiality" is.
>>
>
> Having previously heard a case doesn't mean that somebody isn't
> treating all sides of the case equally, which is what partiality is.
>
> Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
> between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
> the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
> Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
> disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
> free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was

I'm not following this logic.  Are you defining independence as also
being equals?  The appeals courts don't manage the lower courts in the
same way a company manages its employees.  And while it may not be
universally true in the US, if a lower court decides someone is not
guilty (or a jury for that court does), then it's over.  The appeals
court opinion is moot.

ComRel and the council share the same setup.  If ComRel chooses not to
discipline a dev due to a complaint, then no appeals can be filed.
Afterall, the complainant will never know what actions ComRel did or did
not take in regards to the complaint unless the accused mentions it.

> innocent was declared guilty by the lower court.  This would result in
> a system where the lower court is a meaningless exercise in process,
> because every single decision would be overturned.  You want the lower
> court to follow the direction of the higher court, so that the
> majority of decisions are never appealed in the first place, and most
> appeals fail.
>
> That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
> Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
> that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
> being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
> doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
> dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
> against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but

This is a good thing.  Should you really have to worry so much about
what you say in emails, forum posts, IRC channels, so you don't offend
anyone and risk them reporting you and then you getting an X duration ban?

Like it or not, there are going to be conflicting opinions and
discussions on those opinions will sometimes get heated and on occasion
complaints will be filed because emotions have taken over, but none of
that is justification for ComRel to intervene.


> only one opportunity to take action.  If Comrel simply ignored every
> case or dismissed them all, they wouldn't be subject to any oversight
> at all under the present system.

That's an accountability problem not a bias for action problem.  This is
a point that has been made several times in this thread already.  There
needs to be better/more ways to handle accountability concerns when
dealing with ComRel.  The fact that its inner workings are basically a
black box to most on the outside is not a good thing.  There's nothing
positive of going to someone out-of-the-blue and saying "We received
complaints about you, we agreed with the complaints, so here's what your
punishment is.  Don't like it file an appeal".

>
> In an ideal world I'd certainly prefer to see more fresh blood in
> Comrel, but this is an area we need to be careful about.  I'm less
> keen on having Comrel entirely elected unless we fix the issue with
> not being able to appeal inaction, because this essentially means we
> have two different independent bodies steering CoC enforcement in
> different directions.  If people are upset about the independence of
> Council and Trustees then adding more independent governing bodies
> that aren't entirely subordinate seems like a step in the wrong
> direction.  Most organizations try to have just one body ultimately in
> charge with delegation down from there.
>
I don't recall anyone suggesting that comrel become independent of the
council.  What I have seen and personally suggested was that comrel
membership be voted in by the full Gentoo dev community just as the
council is.  Everything would remain the same.  That means ComRel is
still overseen by the Council and anyone who doesn't agree with a ComRel
decision can appeal.

Comrel isn't a normal project, it has the ability to significantly
affect Gentoo as a whole.  The council has the same ability.  I see
little wisdom in letting people join ComRel without a vetting from the
greater community when when Council members are required to go through
such a vetting process.

-Nicholas Vinson