Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel?
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:25:00
Message-Id: 20190425162451.lhhln3cbo6ijkdrl@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel? by "Michał Górny"
1 On 19-04-25 18:14:18, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:55 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
3 > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:02 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
4 > >
5 > > > Hi,
6 > > >
7 > > > Given the amount of discussion GLEP 48 update brought, I'd like to
8 > > > tackle a semi-related topic: wouldn't it be beneficial to have the role
9 > > > and policies of ComRel solidified in a GLEP, and officially stamped
10 > > > by the Council this way?
11 > > >
12 > >
13 > > I'd be excited to see a GLEP to outline the purpose of the Comrel team and
14 > > its role. I'm less happy to codify the policies in the GLEP. I'd argue that
15 > > most policies should be decided at the team level (not the council level).
16 > > GLEP48 itself is kind of a mix of "here is what we think the QA team should
17 > > be doing" and policies "the QA team will fix typos, etc." I'd perhaps
18 > > advocate for stronger guidance on separating these concerns.
19 > >
20 > > To use an example from our IRC conversation. Rich suggested the Comrel GLEP
21 > > should contain some kind of wording for privacy expectations. I agree that
22 > > it should, but I'm not sure it should exactly specify. It might be
23 > > sufficient to say:
24 > >
25 > > [Proctors]
26 > > You should have no privacy expectation for conversations with the Proctors
27 > > team, assume all conversations are public.
28 > >
29 > > [Comrel]
30 > > Conversations with Comrel are confidential, but may become non-confidential
31 > > under (some circumstances){LINK_TO_POLICY_DOCUMENT}.
32 > >
33 > > Note that I don't intend for this to mean the council cannot have a say in
34 > > team policies, but I think it should be more reactionary (users report bad
35 > > policies, council investigates and takes action) and less proactive
36 > > (council reviews and approves all policies.) I think if the latter was to
37 > > happen, you'd need some faster way to get the a council to review and
38 > > approve things. Like in Infra (another team where a charter might be
39 > > worthwhile) I'm not sure the council approving our policies adds much.
40 > >
41 >
42 > We could also go for more general 'disciplinary action' GLEP, and make
43 > individual project (ComRel, Proctors, QA) policies adhere to that.
44 >
45
46 I'd like to avoid focusing too much on retribution (disciplinary action)
47 and more on education. I'm sure there are times where action may be
48 needed but what it sounds like is needed are more genral definitions of
49 what the relationship between groups should be (how to hand off a high
50 priority item for review/action).
51
52 --
53 Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel? "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-project] A GLEP for ComRel? Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>