| 1 |
On 10/06/2016 05:32 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/06/2016 03:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> (Targeting one specific comment here) |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> On 10/03/2016 11:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> [snip] |
| 8 |
>>>> Ultimately if you want to rejoin Gentoo you're going to have to |
| 9 |
>>>> convince either Comrel or the Council that you're not going to create |
| 10 |
>>>> trouble. |
| 11 |
>>>> [snip] |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Are you speaking for William's specific situation, or in general? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I am speaking for the general situation where a developer wants to |
| 16 |
>> return to Gentoo after having been removed as a result of Comrel |
| 17 |
>> action (or with pending Comrel action from the sound of things here, |
| 18 |
>> again I don't have the details personally but am going from what has |
| 19 |
>> been publicly posted here). |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>> Additionally, it appears that rejoining devs are merely treated like new |
| 23 |
>>> devs. Or at least, *should* be[3]: |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> They are, when there weren't Comrel concerns from the last time they were devs. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> Given the above, I have to question the validity of Comrel's involvement |
| 30 |
>>> and ask why things that (allegedly?) happened eight years ago are still |
| 31 |
>>> relevant. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> Since I don't know the details of what happened eight years ago I |
| 34 |
>> couldn't comment. Neither could anybody on Comrel who does know what |
| 35 |
>> happened eight years ago since they're bound by the privacy rules. |
| 36 |
>> Presumably Comrel would decide if those things are relevant, and if a |
| 37 |
>> candidate developer disagreed with them they could appeal to the |
| 38 |
>> Council. From what I've seen in the public comments and discussion |
| 39 |
>> the concerns at this point have nothing to do with what happened eight |
| 40 |
>> years ago, but the recent reactions to bringing them up. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> On one hand I understand the privacy angle, but if information is kept |
| 43 |
> secret by Comrel in the interest of "privacy", how would we find out |
| 44 |
> about any decisions made in poor judgment, an over-reach in power, or |
| 45 |
> merely misunderstandings? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> One such suggestion might be to join the project. However, I imagine |
| 48 |
> Comrel would want to keep information as close as possible and only |
| 49 |
> share it when absolutely necessary. For privacy this makes sense; for |
| 50 |
> transparency and accountability, it enables corrupt behavior. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> I have not personally spoken with anyone in Comrel, so I cannot speak |
| 53 |
> about their methods, but without some degree of transparency my only |
| 54 |
> view as a developer is to hope I don't end up on the business end of it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
While it won't help with the accountability issue, I think Comrel |
| 57 |
members should be voted on by the greater Gentoo community instead of |
| 58 |
using the usual project membership and election rules. As long as |
| 59 |
Comrel has the authority it does, it makes sense to me for them to be |
| 60 |
accountable to both the Council and the community at large. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
As for accountability, I think the statistics suggestion made earlier in |
| 63 |
this conversation is a great idea. Unfortunately, anything beyond that |
| 64 |
will require a relaxing some of Comrel's rules with regards to privacy. |
| 65 |
I'm not against such an idea, but I can see it as being a more difficult |
| 66 |
thing to get consensus on. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Thanks, |
| 69 |
Nicholas Vinson |
Archives