1 |
On 20.6.2013 6.53, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
2 |
> Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are |
3 |
> patently not suited for developing a stable distribution without asking |
4 |
> devrel? Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, and |
5 |
> executioner argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows (pun |
6 |
> intended). |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
GLEP 48 as it currently stands on [1] delegates suspensions to devrel. |
10 |
|
11 |
> Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that you |
12 |
> took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to point out |
13 |
> that is not your task judging code quality, and yes that does make me |
14 |
> uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power at once, and not |
15 |
> collaborate with whom should have been involved in the process. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I agree with you that it's not Devrel's job to be in the code quality |
20 |
business (which I have also pointed internally). |
21 |
|
22 |
Regards, |
23 |
Petteri |
24 |
|
25 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion |
29 |
Q. Why is top posting bad? |