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) |