1 |
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:51:54 -0400 |
3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> I suspect the intent of their vote was that QA members could take |
6 |
>> action individually in the name of QA. [...] |
7 |
> |
8 |
> You can read the meeting agenda ... |
9 |
> |
10 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda |
11 |
> |
12 |
> ..., which shows the intent of the vote; it originates from ... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3509 |
15 |
> |
16 |
> ..., which was brought up by Samuli. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I understand that. My point is just that when members of QA want to |
20 |
speak for QA, they should say so. |
21 |
|
22 |
If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment |
23 |
"update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the |
24 |
change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion |
25 |
when reverting anything). If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain |
26 |
with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not |
27 |
free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the |
28 |
Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not. |
29 |
|
30 |
Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is |
31 |
worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion. If he |
32 |
comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not worth |
33 |
pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of QA |
34 |
until demonstrated otherwise. |
35 |
|
36 |
I occasionally post in bugs on behalf of the Council, and less |
37 |
recently the Trustees. When I do so I'm careful to state that my |
38 |
comment is on their behalf, and as a result people take the |
39 |
Council/Trustees seriously. QA is intended to be operating closer to |
40 |
the day-to-day fray and thus it can't be quite as deliberate in its |
41 |
actions, but it is still helpful when QA members make it clear when |
42 |
they're wearing their QA hats. |
43 |
|
44 |
Rich |