1 |
Daniel Goller posted <444C5909.1010606@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
2 |
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:50:17 -0500: |
3 |
|
4 |
>> * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the majority |
5 |
>> of established QA members must agree with the action. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> you shouldn't disagree about this policy, or you might as well not have |
8 |
> this document, write disagree on the solution maybe? |
9 |
|
10 |
Don't take this wrong but you did mention you weren't a native English |
11 |
speaker, and I think this the interpretation demonstrates that. |
12 |
(That isn't to say it couldn't be made clearer, just that your |
13 |
interpretation isn't likely to occur to a native English speaker, thus the |
14 |
discussion.) |
15 |
|
16 |
To me (as a native English speaker), it's strange to consider that a |
17 |
reference to /this/ policy. Rather, the reference is to QA policy and |
18 |
decision making in general -- how a disagreement on QA policy between |
19 |
members of the QA team is to be handled. |
20 |
|
21 |
That this is the case would be particularly obvious in context, coming |
22 |
after (as it does) the previous point, dealing with exceptions due to |
23 |
imperfect tools and mentioning that there /are/ such exceptions. The |
24 |
point in question above doesn't /only/ deal with that, thus it's its own |
25 |
bullet point, but the thought is clearly to provide some guidance in |
26 |
dynamic situations, where for whatever reason there's a difference of |
27 |
opinion within QA on how to proceed (as an imperfect tool exception could |
28 |
legitimately provoke, again, the handy example, not the only case, thus |
29 |
it's not a sub-point but its own bullet point). |
30 |
|
31 |
The other alternative would be unanimous agreement or the decision of the |
32 |
maintainer in question rules, altho there is of course the middle |
33 |
possibilities of say 3/5 or 2/3 or 3/4 super-majority required in ordered |
34 |
to overrule the maintainer. |
35 |
|
36 |
As I said, your interpretation, that it applied to /this/ policy, wouldn't |
37 |
be likely to occur to a native English speaker, and does in fact seem a |
38 |
bit odd. However, that's not to say the point isn't valid, as it's |
39 |
certainly best that the document be clear to all, including non-native |
40 |
English speakers to whom the point as now written obviously isn't entirely |
41 |
clear. |
42 |
|
43 |
Actually, the point about a 2/3 (or whatever) super-majority, vs. simple |
44 |
majority of the QA team needed to overrule a maintainer, is a good one to |
45 |
debate as well. Perhaps developers would be less worried about abuse if |
46 |
the majority required was stronger, thus improving the safety margin. |
47 |
Assuming that's the case, the policy as a whole could probably have more |
48 |
teeth in the case of a super-majority required, than would be possible if |
49 |
it's only a simple majority. If some sort of a super-majority was |
50 |
required, it should be easier to accept certain decisions, when they |
51 |
seriously impact a developer or Gentoo in general. I know if I had a |
52 |
disagreement and out of a five member team, two sided with me and three |
53 |
against, making it a majority-of-one, I'd be less comfortable with the |
54 |
outcome than if it had required a 2/3 majority, and thus 4 members of the |
55 |
team voting against me. |
56 |
|
57 |
Another way to approach it would be to state that for purposes of packages |
58 |
(s)he maintains, a developer gets one vote on the QA as well. Thus, in |
59 |
ordered to overrule h(im|er), the QA team would need 50%+2, since 50%+1 |
60 |
would be deadlock with the developer siding on the keep things as they are |
61 |
side. |
62 |
|
63 |
The idea in either case is to minimize the possibility of something |
64 |
occurring without enough of a majority opinion to make the decision look |
65 |
arbitrary or subject to immediate reversal upon the whims of a single QA |
66 |
team member, without making it impotent in certain cases due to a |
67 |
requirement for a unanimous decision. Reason in the middle ground? |
68 |
|
69 |
-- |
70 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
71 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
72 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
73 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |