| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:39 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 2020.02.21 09:19, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 22:24 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > > I'm a little bit concerned that this addresses the symptoms |
| 9 |
> > > instead of the problem. Have you shared your concerns with comrel |
| 10 |
> > > regarding their lack of timely communication on reported issues? Do |
| 11 |
> > > they even share the same goals you enumerated? |
| 12 |
> > > > > My strawperson argument is that: |
| 13 |
> > > > > - (0) The council will elect some lead. |
| 14 |
> > > > > - The lead will never write reports (or write them but stop.) |
| 15 |
> > > > > - The lead will get removed per policy. |
| 16 |
> > > > > - Council will elect a new lead. |
| 17 |
> > > > > - GOTO 0 |
| 18 |
> > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > My suggestion is in that case of missed report deadline, Council |
| 20 |
> > > asks for |
| 21 |
> > > > volunteers from the developer community to step up, and appoints two |
| 22 |
> > > of them |
| 23 |
> > > > to go through ComRel records and produce the transparency report. |
| 24 |
> > > > |
| 25 |
> > > > Regular independent review of ComRel activity is what NeddySeagoon |
| 26 |
> > > and I |
| 27 |
> > > > originally suggested and discussed with ComRel a while back. But |
| 28 |
> > > they seemed |
| 29 |
> > > > completely against it, so we eventually dropped it. |
| 30 |
> > > > |
| 31 |
> > > |
| 32 |
> > > All things considered, maybe creating a separate 'revision' group |
| 33 |
> > > would |
| 34 |
> > > be better, independently of the reports. Either split ComRel in two, |
| 35 |
> > > or |
| 36 |
> > > appoint something independent. Let 'core' ComRel do their work, while |
| 37 |
> > > the 'revision' group merely monitor their activities without getting |
| 38 |
> > > directly involved in the process. |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo council. |
| 41 |
> > Unless, that is, council have no oversight of comrel? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> No, that's not how things work. You don't have an appeal body |
| 44 |
> proactively look into what all projects are doing. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a report[0], and |
| 48 |
the Council[1] reviews it. Could it lead to horrific fishing expeditions? |
| 49 |
Sure. But there is always risk in oversight. Building an ideal system is |
| 50 |
not possible; there are trade offs in engineering and there are tradeoffs |
| 51 |
in organizational structure and accountability. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
In some new system where there is oversight of comrel we will have people |
| 54 |
who can peek into the decision making process and: |
| 55 |
- leak private details |
| 56 |
- potentially reverse decisions |
| 57 |
- potentially force action with incomplete information (e.g. to meet some |
| 58 |
arbitrary deadline to "make cases be resolved faster." |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
These are all potential risks. Will they happen? Hard to know without |
| 61 |
trying. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-A |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
[0] FWIW the Trustees are also potentially interested in the report. |
| 66 |
[1] The council can always delegate it to someone. Accountability (I am |
| 67 |
accountable for X) and Responsibility (I will literally do X) are not the |
| 68 |
same thing. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> -- |
| 73 |
> Best regards, |
| 74 |
> Michał Górny |
| 75 |
> |
| 76 |
> |
Archives