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. |
8 |
|
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. |
14 |
|
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. |
18 |
|
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. |
25 |
|
26 |
Rich |