| 1 |
On 01/16/17 08:22, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16/01/2017 05:56, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the |
| 4 |
>> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual |
| 5 |
>> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed |
| 6 |
>> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads |
| 7 |
>> already in place. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> [...] |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel, |
| 12 |
>> with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium |
| 13 |
>> or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple, |
| 14 |
>> consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while |
| 15 |
>> minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit |
| 16 |
>> argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means |
| 17 |
>> make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not |
| 18 |
>> discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read |
| 19 |
>> the documentation. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Good points. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> IMO the proposal also has good points, and just needs to be updated to |
| 24 |
> take scalability issues into account. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
The proposal is, in a nutshell, to file lots of bugs for the Council and |
| 27 |
make them the first, last, and only point of appeal. Which effectively |
| 28 |
makes the role of the Council to try keeping up with scrollback |
| 29 |
literally everywhere that Gentoo staff/developers have disciplinary |
| 30 |
authority due to their roles as Gentoo staff/developers; which, to be at |
| 31 |
all realistic, is just not going to happen. It presents no novel net |
| 32 |
benefits while incurring novel net costs. In short, the status quo is |
| 33 |
superior to the proposed model. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel. |
| 36 |
They already do, as do all other disciplinary actions on the forums. The |
| 37 |
question should not be: "what can be special cased into being allowed to |
| 38 |
have local handling by those responsible for a communications medium or |
| 39 |
channel?" If anything, it should be: "what, if anything, should be |
| 40 |
forced to be handled by people who are not necessarily involved with the |
| 41 |
medium or channel in question?" To answer the latter with "first pass |
| 42 |
appeals" serves to increase workloads generally and confusion on the |
| 43 |
part of those not familiar with the process, though I suppose it would |
| 44 |
suit functionaries fond of dismissing inquires with a quick "nothing I |
| 45 |
can do". |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
Which is rather my point: filing the bugs as required by the proposal is |
| 50 |
pointless, and rather excessive, make work. Disciplinary actions are |
| 51 |
already documented, either in situ or privately as befits the action(s) |
| 52 |
taken, and such documentation can be dumped to a suitable bug if and |
| 53 |
when necessary, but making all such documentation into bugs serves no |
| 54 |
useful purpose even if fully automated (which it most certainly is not |
| 55 |
at the moment)... unless the goal is to force Council members to filter |
| 56 |
their e-mail. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> Paweł |
| 59 |
> |
Archives