| 1 |
On 24.02.2020 11:19, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 11:08 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 24.02.2020 10:47, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sat, 2020-02-22 at 22:35 -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:39 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>>> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 22:11 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>> This 'revision' group alread exists. Its called the Gentoo council. |
| 9 |
>>>>>> Unless, that is, council have no oversight of comrel? |
| 10 |
>>>>> No, that's not how things work. You don't have an appeal body |
| 11 |
>>>>> proactively look into what all projects are doing. |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> I think by definition this is reactive. Comrel publishes a report[0], and |
| 14 |
>>>> the Council[1] reviews it. |
| 15 |
>>> I thought we've already established that the reports are meaningless. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> The way I see it, your system basically means that, repeatedly: |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> 1. ComRel does their job. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> 2. ComRel wastes their time publishing a meaningless report. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> 3. Since the report is meaningless, Council has to audit ComRel's work. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> Since digging for past data is usually more effort than processing it |
| 26 |
>>> as it flows, Council may as well start proactively auditing everything. |
| 27 |
>>> Except that's not its purpose, and I don't see why we should throw |
| 28 |
>>> random extra tasks on their plate just because. |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> In my opinion, if we are to go for auditing ComRel, we should select |
| 31 |
>>> a separate group of people for that, people that choose to put their |
| 32 |
>>> effort into auditing rather than incidentally get dragged into it. |
| 33 |
>>> Furthermore, I believe this group should not have any direct deciding |
| 34 |
>>> power. Instead, they should bring any issues their find to ComRel's |
| 35 |
>>> attention and/or appeal them to the Council. |
| 36 |
>>> |
| 37 |
>> This is meaningless also, because an individual who finds ComRel |
| 38 |
>> decision unacceptable can appeal to Council directly, you do not need |
| 39 |
>> third party layer here. |
| 40 |
> The individual can only judge the reply to his own request. He lacks |
| 41 |
> the wider context to audit the process and decisions (or lack of them) |
| 42 |
> wrt multiple different requests. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> This works both ways. People are also making accusations and claim |
| 45 |
> about ComRel based on what they guess might be happening |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
The same applies to any third party review body. let's imagine: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
1. A review body finds something unacceptable and want it to be reviewed |
| 51 |
by council |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
1a. A review body requests more details from ComRel to understand a case |
| 54 |
better |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
1b. ComRel provides more details |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
1c. A review body decides to appeal to the Council |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
2. Council starts to review the decision |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
2a. Council requests data a review body collected |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
2b. Council requests input from ComRel (because there maybe something |
| 65 |
missing by chance, etc) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
As a result we have more busywork, this all can be conveyed to Council |
| 69 |
directly. Also this is unclear to me how a review body will decide what |
| 70 |
to appeal and what hot to, as the data is still being kept private and |
| 71 |
reviewers are going to only have a decision on hands. Having only |
| 72 |
decision is not enough to start thinking ComRel did anything wrong |
| 73 |
(well, unless there were direct rules violation, which, to my knowledge |
| 74 |
has never been the case). |
Archives