| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Dean Stephens schrieb: |
| 4 |
>>> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary |
| 5 |
>>> action against non-members, which there is no recourse against |
| 6 |
>>> except appeal to the Council. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific |
| 9 |
>> channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Council, QA and Comrel are effectively the governing bodies of |
| 12 |
> Gentoo, enacting and/or enforcing project-wide policy on their own |
| 13 |
> accord. The others that you mention have only direct power in a very |
| 14 |
> limited area. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the |
| 17 |
team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification: |
| 18 |
"The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping |
| 19 |
the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and |
| 20 |
pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct |
| 21 |
action." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The latter is meant in the sense of direct action to the tree (and |
| 24 |
even then, overriding maintainers is not the default). The QA team |
| 25 |
doesn't have the power to take any direct disciplinary action against |
| 26 |
developers. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Theoretically, in the case of continuing breakage caused by a dev, QA |
| 29 |
could ask ComRel to have that dev's commit access suspended. I cannot |
| 30 |
remember any case where such a measure was taken (correct me if I am |
| 31 |
wrong). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So, it appears that QA has teeth but need not use them. ;) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ulrich |
Archives