| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty |
| 4 |
>> until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ |
| 5 |
>> situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) |
| 6 |
>> resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as |
| 7 |
>> security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The devs asked for a council. A council was elected. The council decided |
| 10 |
> that QA trumps devs. If anybody has a problem with that they are free to |
| 11 |
> object at the next council meeting. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The council decided that QA trumps devs for documented policy. It didn't |
| 14 |
decide, at least from what I saw, that QA could just do whatever they |
| 15 |
feel like without any sort of change to the policy. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Thanks, |
| 18 |
Donnie |
Archives