| 1 |
On 01:14 Fri 21 Feb , Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Andreas K. Huettel schrieb: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
| 5 |
> > repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously suggested |
| 6 |
> > one (since the last meeting). |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > We will send out the agenda one week before the meeting date, i.e. |
| 9 |
> > 2014-02-18. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If that is still possible, I would like to add one more item related to the |
| 12 |
> gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flags to the agenda. Namely, whether Council gives QA the |
| 13 |
> powers to enact such a rule. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In my opinion, it is not necessary for QA to have such powers (and |
| 16 |
> therefore better if they don't have it). QA can already act per GLEP 48 if |
| 17 |
> there is an immediate serious problem for users. And when there is not an |
| 18 |
> immediate serious problem, any such rule can be proposed by QA to council |
| 19 |
> for decision, especially if the topic is as controversial as the gtk USE |
| 20 |
> flag issue. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Funny how every time a controversial decision gets made, somebody |
| 23 |
inevitably tries to undermine the authority of the group making the |
| 24 |
decision. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In my understanding, the issue you want to address is whether the QA |
| 27 |
team has authority over tree policy. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Will add to the agenda. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I happen to disagree. GLEP 48's point about maintaining "QA Standards" |
| 32 |
applies to this. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Donnie |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 39 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
| 40 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |
Archives