Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] January 2014 QA Policy Updates
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:58:28
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] January 2014 QA Policy Updates by Alec Warner
1 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
2 >> sounds to me like QA is giving itself carte blanche to make any "fix"
3 >> they want as per "we think a developer's actions are causing problems"
4 >> hmm?
5 >
6 > So in short, while one could read that passage as you did, I don't think
7 > that is their intention.
9 Probably also worth noting that QA isn't giving itself any authority -
10 GLEP 48 gave them very broad authority some time ago. QA has been
11 operating in the manner described for a fairly long time as well. It
12 just seems like they're trying to be more transparent about it, which
13 I applaud.
15 GLEP 48 was recently amended to require QA to have its nominated lead
16 confirmed by the council largely because it is a position that wields
17 a great deal of authority.
19 I was really happy to see a public notice of meeting and a published
20 summary. While any kind of policy-making will always involve some
21 level of controversy, I think that this goes a long way towards
22 assuring the community that they have a voice and that if policies
23 don't turn out well they can be adjusted. Maybe the only thing that
24 changed is perceptions, but those are important.
26 Rich