Gentoo Archives: gentoo-qa

From: Peter Volkov <pva@g.o>
To: gentoo-qa@l.g.o
Cc: devrel@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] Proposed changes to GLEP48
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:06:00
Message-Id: 1295966341.16834.12.camel@tablet
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-qa] Proposed changes to GLEP48 by "Tomáš Chvátal"
В Пнд, 24/01/2011 в 21:59 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal пишет:
> +* Should a situation arise where a developer causes breakage to the point > + that it cannot be ascribed to bona-fide mistake, either the QA lead or two > + members of the QA team can require the Infra team to temporarily suspend > + access to said developer, pending analysis of the causes and resolution > + to be provided by QA team within 14 days of said suspension. > + Resolution for these kind of issues is completely in hands of the QA team > + and only the Gentoo Council can revisit the case.
The last sentence makes QA behave in role of devrel. QA and devrel teams have quite different roles: QA team deals with technical side while devrel works with humans. Different subjects make big difference in methods (how issues should be handled) and results (what is resolved issue). Technical issues should be fixed technically and the result of QA team's work can be commit to fix issue or policy for all developers to follow. That is why QA team is allowed to touch any package package in the tree and QA maintains developer documentation. Devrel team handles issues by communication with other developers and result should be the change in developer's behavior ("to make sure the Gentoo developer community is a pleasant environment for everyone involved to participate in"). So although QA should be able to revoke commit access in emergency cases still it's devrel job to work with human explain issues and either revoke commit permanently or return commit rights. -- Peter.