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

[Nick Vinson]

On 10/07/2016 08:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2016 07:32 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  My opinion is that if a developer is bad enough to keep out, its also
>>>>>  important enough to get the paperwork fixed to prove it.  If they
>>>>> have a
>>>>>  clean case it *should* be very easy to get the paperwork right.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, by all means leave the bug open until the paperwork is fixed,
>>>> but I don't think that means that the developer should be allowed back
>>>> in if the bug isn't closed before some deadline.
>>>
>>> What I want to prevent is a stagnation where a dev gets mistakenly
>>> locked out because his case got left in limbo.
>>>
>>>>>  But its the "due process" here that proves the developer is bad to
>>>>> begin
>>>>>  with.  If comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and the
>>>>> developer is
>>>>>  actually meritorious, its bad for gentoo to keep them out.
>>>
>>>> Sure, if all three of your preconditions are true I agree with your
>>>> conclusion.  However, if comrel screwed up and there was a mistake and
>>>> the developer is actually still a problem, then the solution is to fix
>>>> the mistakes, not keep them around.
>>>
>>> And how do you know whether the developer is a problem or not?
>
> The same way Comrel knows.  You look at the evidence and draw a
> conclusion.  If you don't trust somebody to do that, you shouldn't be
> putting them on the Council.
>
>>
>> If ComRel screwed
>> up, then "fixing" the mistake is also reversing their decisions that
>> includes bringing back the dev.  If the developer is really a problem,
>> then ComRel will be given repeated chances to deal with the developer
>> and eventually (well hopefully not eventually) the "due process" will be
>> done correctly and the developer will be removed.
>
> And what happens when somebody sues Gentoo or one of its contributors
> for not doing enough to deal with a problem, because we're fighting
> over process when there is agreement that the person in question ought
> to go?

The same thing that happens when somebody sues Gentoo or one of its
contributors for discrimination or some other related charge because it
overreacted to a problem and punished an innocent developer.

That said, if there are concerns about legal issues relating to Gentoo
policy or procedures, then the Trustees need to be notified so they can
look into it.  Neither the council nor ComRel are staffed with the
expectation to understand or act on potential legal issues.  The
Trustees, on the other hand, are expected to address legal concerns in
whatever manner is appropriate.  They are the ones, after-all, that
would have to deal with any lawsuit against the Gentoo foundation.

>
>> To me this really seems to follow the line of thinking of "If the dev
>> was really innocent of any wrong doing, no complaint would have been
>> filed".  I hope that's not the case because I find that style of logic
>> to be both naive and dangerous.
>
> This would only be a valid criticism if every complaint resolved in
> the harshest possible punishment.  From the sound of things most
> complaints result in no action at all.  As far as I can tell most
> Comrel actions aren't even appealed.  After all, the matter that
> started this whole discussion wasn't even appealed to the whole of
> Comrel let alone to the Council.
>