1 |
Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind |
2 |
of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can |
3 |
be exercised. |
4 |
|
5 |
According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit |
6 |
rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of |
7 |
confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely |
8 |
serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is |
9 |
supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its |
10 |
scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action |
11 |
possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like |
12 |
an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. |
13 |
|
14 |
The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue |
15 |
short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly |
16 |
to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows. |
17 |
|
18 |
Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set |
19 |
a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA |
20 |
is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo, |
21 |
which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other |
22 |
packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned |
23 |
in actions having social consequences rather than technical. |
24 |
|
25 |
Secondly, it clearly defines the possible disciplinary actions as either |
26 |
temporary commit access ban, or (in case of repeated offenses) permanent |
27 |
removal of commit access. |
28 |
|
29 |
Thirdly, it removes the unnecessary involvement of ComRel in temporary |
30 |
bans, QA violations being outside of their scope of interest. Each case |
31 |
of QA violations is analyzed by QA team individually, and QA team |
32 |
exercises disciplinary actions independently. At the same time, appeal |
33 |
path via Council is left provided. |
34 |
|
35 |
ComRel stays the body deciding for permanent ban and/or retirement, |
36 |
in case of repeated offense. |
37 |
|
38 |
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
39 |
--- |
40 |
glep-0048.rst | 15 ++++++++++----- |
41 |
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) |
42 |
|
43 |
Changes from v1: |
44 |
- QA issues only short-term bans independently, while ComRel handles |
45 |
requests for permanent commit access removal |
46 |
|
47 |
diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst |
48 |
index f9773c0..6b5d031 100644 |
49 |
--- a/glep-0048.rst |
50 |
+++ b/glep-0048.rst |
51 |
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Type: Standards Track |
52 |
Status: Final |
53 |
Version: 2 |
54 |
Created: 2006-04-24 |
55 |
-Last-Modified: 2014-01-25 |
56 |
-Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08 |
57 |
+Last-Modified: 2018-04-23 |
58 |
+Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2018-04-12 |
59 |
Content-Type: text/x-rst |
60 |
--- |
61 |
|
62 |
@@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ tree policies are respected. |
63 |
made by the council. |
64 |
* Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not |
65 |
change the fact that it is still a QA violation. |
66 |
-* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team |
67 |
- may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. |
68 |
- Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel. |
69 |
+* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that |
70 |
+ negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers |
71 |
+ or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation |
72 |
+ of developer's commit access (ban). In case of repeated offenses, the QA |
73 |
+ team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access. All |
74 |
+ the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated |
75 |
+ by the QA team for each case individually. The disciplinary decisions made |
76 |
+ by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council. |
77 |
* The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations |
78 |
as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not |
79 |
meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic |
80 |
-- |
81 |
2.21.0 |