Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:57 AM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
>
> Well, what is the purpose of an appeal?
> Presumably, it is twofold: 1) that the procedures that lead up to the
> initial decision were just and appropriate, 2) that the logic that lead
> to the initial decision was valid and correct.
>

It seems far more important to me that the purpose is to confirm
whether the underlying complaint is valid, and whether the action
taken by Comrel was appropriate.  If the procedures/logic were flawed
that seems more like a refinement.

If somebody was harassing somebody else, and Comrel boots them, and it
turns out that they didn't file some information correctly, is it
better to let the booted dev back in and tell Comrel to boot them
again correctly this time?

When somebody doesn't commit a package properly we tell them not to do
it again, and we make any appropriate fixes.  We don't arbitrarily
revert the commit without thinking about the pros and cons of doing
this vs fixing the problem in some other way.  Sometimes a reversion
is appropriate solution, but sometimes the right solution is to move
things forward to a better state.  Ultimately we need to be concerned
with the user experience.

In the same way we need to be concerned with the community experience.
Sometimes overturning a comrel decision might be the right move, but
sometimes it might just need a nudge in the right direction, or no
change at all as far as the outcome goes, even if something went wrong
along the way.  Doing otherwise just leads to lawyering where we argue
over the process completely ignoring the reason why Comrel is
necessary in the first place.

> The likelihood of a ComRel member changing their mind at the Council
> appeal stage should be minimal, and their decision is most likely
> against an individual at this point.  This means that the votes in an
> appeal are already stacked against an individual if a Council member is
> a ComRel member.

That makes sense.

> Recusing oneself reduces an initial bias against an
> individual.

I don't see this as bias, though bias has many definitions.  Typically
bias implies some kind of unfairness.  A fully-informed decision isn't
bias.

>
> Hopefully it should be more clear as to why recusal or independence is
> being promoted as superior to the alternative.  It promotes
> imparitality, something you'd hope for in an appeal.  "Conflict of
> Interest" probably wasn't the proper terminology to use earlier.
> "Impartiality" is.
>

Having previously heard a case doesn't mean that somebody isn't
treating all sides of the case equally, which is what partiality is.

Note that most court systems do not generally strive for independence
between court levels.  Usually lower courts are completely subject to
the higher ones.  This makes sense when you consider how appeals work.
Imagine if a lower court and a higher court were completely in
disagreement.  Anybody who the higher court felt was guilty was set
free by the lower court, and anybody the higher court felt was
innocent was declared guilty by the lower court.  This would result in
a system where the lower court is a meaningless exercise in process,
because every single decision would be overturned.  You want the lower
court to follow the direction of the higher court, so that the
majority of decisions are never appealed in the first place, and most
appeals fail.

That actually brings up a separate issue with how Comrel operates.
Right now the most common interpretation of the code of conduct says
that the only person who can appeal a Comrel decision is somebody
being punished by Comrel.  If dev A complains to Comrel about dev B
doing something wrong, and Comrel decides to take no action against
dev B, dev A has no recourse for appeal.  That is a system biased
against action because there are two opportunities to stop action, but
only one opportunity to take action.  If Comrel simply ignored every
case or dismissed them all, they wouldn't be subject to any oversight
at all under the present system.

In an ideal world I'd certainly prefer to see more fresh blood in
Comrel, but this is an area we need to be careful about.  I'm less
keen on having Comrel entirely elected unless we fix the issue with
not being able to appeal inaction, because this essentially means we
have two different independent bodies steering CoC enforcement in
different directions.  If people are upset about the independence of
Council and Trustees then adding more independent governing bodies
that aren't entirely subordinate seems like a step in the wrong
direction.  Most organizations try to have just one body ultimately in
charge with delegation down from there.

-- 
Rich