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

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:24 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 19-04-25 18:14:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:55 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:02 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Given the amount of discussion GLEP 48 update brought, I'd like to
> > > > tackle a semi-related topic: wouldn't it be beneficial to have the role
> > > > and policies of ComRel solidified in a GLEP, and officially stamped
> > > > by the Council this way?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd be excited to see a GLEP to outline the purpose of the Comrel team and
> > > its role. I'm less happy to codify the policies in the GLEP. I'd argue that
> > > most policies should be decided at the team level (not the council level).
> > > GLEP48 itself is kind of a mix of "here is what we think the QA team should
> > > be doing" and policies "the QA team will fix typos, etc." I'd perhaps
> > > advocate for stronger guidance on separating these concerns.
> > >
> > > To use an example from our IRC conversation. Rich suggested the Comrel GLEP
> > > should contain some kind of wording for privacy expectations. I agree that
> > > it should, but I'm not sure it should exactly specify. It might be
> > > sufficient to say:
> > >
> > > [Proctors]
> > > You should have no privacy expectation for conversations with the Proctors
> > > team, assume all conversations are public.
> > >
> > > [Comrel]
> > > Conversations with Comrel are confidential, but may become non-confidential
> > > under (some circumstances){LINK_TO_POLICY_DOCUMENT}.
> > >
> > > Note that I don't intend for this to mean the council cannot have a say in
> > > team policies, but I think it should be more reactionary (users report bad
> > > policies, council investigates and takes action) and less proactive
> > > (council reviews and approves all policies.) I think if the latter was to
> > > happen, you'd need some faster way to get the a council to review and
> > > approve things. Like in Infra (another team where a charter might be
> > > worthwhile) I'm not sure the council approving our policies adds much.
> > >
> >
> > We could also go for more general 'disciplinary action' GLEP, and make
> > individual project (ComRel, Proctors, QA) policies adhere to that.
> >
>
> I'd like to avoid focusing too much on retribution (disciplinary action)
> and more on education.  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).
>

I'd be happy to see ComRel focus more on educating, helping and cooling
down conflicts.  To my experience, ComRel so far has mostly focused
on ignoring requests, threatening people and occasionally issuing
punishment.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny