| 1 |
Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal |
| 3 |
> structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to |
| 4 |
> internal structural issues, but that's just me 8) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure |
| 7 |
Gentoo' haven't done so well on this issue. Maybe a little *more* peanut |
| 8 |
gallery would do some good. 8) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Seriously, don't knock an idea simply because it doesn't come from |
| 11 |
somebody in your chosen circle, or because it comes from somebody you |
| 12 |
don't like personally... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra |
| 15 |
> should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever |
| 16 |
> said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for |
| 17 |
> disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reported by the QA |
| 18 |
> team |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What about giving QA temporary revoke powers just like infra (Curtis |
| 21 |
Napier's idea), traditionalist? Fixing devrel's resolutions policies and |
| 22 |
Curtis' idea don't have to be mutually-exclusive. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives