Topic on User talk:Tim Starling (WMF)/Gerrit group membership policy changes

I'm planning on changing the draft to clarify what is meant by WMF directing an action, as follows:

• Gerrit group access for a WMF employee may be revoked at the direction of that employee's manager.
• The CTO may direct granting or revocation of any group from any person.
• The CTO may direct alteration of the policy.

I think this is sensible, though it may not be uncontroversial.

Bullet #1, sure. Also the part of the proposal not mentioned here allowing Gerrit admins to take emergency action (with later review) sounds fine to me.

Bullets #2 and #3 I find concerning, although I can't clearly articulate why. Is there really a need for a "benevolent dictator" model rather than allowing the more community-based processes to handle things?

Particularly regarding bullet #2, it seems to me the main difference between that and a Gerrit admin using their emergency power is that it doesn't provide for review of the action. Although given past history I'd expect there would be informal review on wikitech-l anyway. ;)

After reading Anomie's comment, I agree that the "benevolent dictator" powers of the CTO should be somewhat checked:

I think the CTO should at least be required to document and justify any granting or revoking access that bypasses the usual process.

I also think that while the CTO should be the one to enact alteration of the policy, and be able to veto such alterations, they should only be able to change the policy after consulting with the community (perhaps via a drafting process run by TechCom, but that need not be prescribed by the policy).