Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 11:26:49
Message-Id: 443f0e87f4fe579891d23809d46acbd6caf14bb8.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Undertakers: appeal policy by Roy Bamford
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 10:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2019.09.21 08:01, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > Since we currently don't explicitly indicate the appeal procedure > > for Undertaker actions, I'd like to propose adding the following to > > our > > wiki page. > > > > TL;DR: Potential retirements can be appealed <1 mo before execution > > (or > > post execution), with ComRel being the first appeal instance, > > and Council being the second. > > > > > > Full proposed policy, with rationale: > > > > 1. Both pending and past retirements can be appealed to ComRel. > > The ComRel decision can be further appealed to the Council. > > > > R: ComRel is a parent project for Undertakers, so it seems reasonable > > to > > make it the first appeal instance. > > > > > > 2. Pending retirements can be appealed no earlier than one month > > before > > planned execution date (i.e. no earlier than after receiving third- > > mail). > > > > R: This is meant to prevent premature appeals while Undertakers would > > not retire the developer anyway (e.g. due to new activity). > > Undertakers > > recheck activity while sending third mail, so that's a good point to > > confirm that someone's retirement is still pending. > > > > > > 3. Throughout the appeal process, the pending retirement is suspended. > > > > If the appeal occurs post retirement, the developer remains retired > > throughout the appeal process. The appeal process is finished if > > either: > > > > a. the Council issues final decision, > > > > b. the ComRel decision is not appealed further within 7 days, > > > > c. both sides agree not to appeal further. > > > > R: We obviously want to avoid ping-pong of retiring, then unretiring > > (then maybe retiring again). > > > > > > 4. The appeal process is meant to resolve disagreements between > > Undertakers and developers. It is not a replacement for communicating > > with Undertakers. > > > > R: We don't want people to appeal everything without even trying to > > resolve it between us. For example, if we missed something, then you > > should tell us rather than calling for appeal. However, if we do > > disagree on whether something counts as sufficient activity, this is > > something you can appeal. > > > > > > 5. The appeal process resolves each case individually based on > > existing > > policies. While it may influence future policies, those need to be > > carried out via appropriate policy making channels. > > > > R: In other words, appeals don't change policies silently. If a > > policy > > needs to be changed, it must follow proper channel with ml review. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Michał Górny > > > > > > Michał, > > Looks good. It also looks like the standard process so does it > need to be documented explicitly on the Undertakers page? >
Given that one person already asked about it, I supposed it does. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

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