| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra |
| 4 |
>>should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever |
| 5 |
>>said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for |
| 6 |
>>disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reported by the QA |
| 7 |
>>team |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> works for me ... best to keep the number of 'bad guys' down to a min :D |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
+1 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Let QA handle QA and devrel handle developer relations. If devrel |
| 14 |
processes take too much time that's something that should be improved |
| 15 |
inside devrel, not by splitting devrel role onto multiple projects. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce, let's |
| 18 |
just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to do QA, |
| 19 |
not sure telling them they will do QA+police will help in motivating them. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Koon |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives