1 |
On 01/20/2014 10:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend |
5 |
>>> people |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable; |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm |
10 |
>> still on the fence regarding whether we really need to make this |
11 |
>> change at all, but things like access suspensions and other |
12 |
>> administrative/disciplinary procedures should be documented. I think |
13 |
>> whether this is a matter of public record or not is open to debate, |
14 |
>> but I don't like the fact that we can really say for sure when/if this |
15 |
>> has actually happened. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be able |
19 |
> to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends badly. I |
20 |
> suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and the number |
21 |
> of cases where it was the right thing to do is precisely 0. |
22 |
|
23 |
I've been in positions where such powers were not granted, it's worse. |
24 |
|
25 |
All you can do is send strongly-worded letters and undo, then wait for |
26 |
the same thing to be tried again, while telling damagement that this |
27 |
situation is not good. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
> It was always a case of ill-advised action taken out of frustration, or |
31 |
> bypass the training step, or don't try hard enough to reach the |
32 |
> "infringer" and communicate like grown adults. Yup, I did all three. |
33 |
|
34 |
Some people need more direct clues, and since violence in the workplace |
35 |
is usually disallowed ... |
36 |
|
37 |
> Suspending an account is a very serious thing to undertake, the effects |
38 |
> on the suspended person are vast and this power should never lie with |
39 |
> the person who is feeling the pain. Instead, there are well established |
40 |
> channels to the body who can make the decision. If QA has a problem with |
41 |
> a dev for any reason whatsoever, then QA should make a well-thought out |
42 |
> case to that other body for decision. Anything else is madness and open |
43 |
> invitation for it to all go south. |
44 |
> |
45 |
It's a serious thing, so it should have some consequences. |
46 |
|
47 |
I'm mildly amused how everyone wants strong QA, but as soon as QA tries |
48 |
to actually *do* something it's bad, and overstepping their boundaries, |
49 |
and NIMBY. |
50 |
|
51 |
Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely |
52 |
... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down. |
53 |
We're allowed to send strongly-worded emails, but getting things baked |
54 |
into policy is too radical. |
55 |
|
56 |
And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues. |
57 |
Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of |
58 |
these warnings fatal, then you can't accidentally add such things. |
59 |
(And people not using repoman will have some extra fun!) |
60 |
|
61 |
Have fun, |
62 |
|
63 |
Patrick |