1 |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely |
4 |
> ... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down. |
5 |
> We're allowed to send strongly-worded emails, but getting things baked |
6 |
> into policy is too radical. |
7 |
|
8 |
So, here is how I reconcile this. There are basically two kinds of |
9 |
problems - technical problems, and people problems. We need to deal |
10 |
with both. I see QA as being primarily responsible for technical |
11 |
problems, and it should be staffed to deal with them. I'm fully |
12 |
supportive of it being a policy-creating body, with the Council being |
13 |
the place to vet any policies that seem controversial. |
14 |
|
15 |
If an ebuild has a deficiency, that's a technical problem - QA should |
16 |
step in. QA should also educate the maintainer so that they |
17 |
understand how to avoid the problem in the future. |
18 |
|
19 |
Suppose the maintainer refuses to take the problem seriously (whether |
20 |
they're just lazy, incompetent, or malicious). Now, that is a people |
21 |
problem, and really shouldn't be QA's responsibility to deal with |
22 |
beyond pointing it out to Comrel. |
23 |
|
24 |
Comrel should deal with people problems, and they should be staffed |
25 |
accordingly. They need the manpower so that they can deal with them |
26 |
efficiently. When QA says that a developer is not following a |
27 |
technical policy, Comrel should defer to them as this is their area of |
28 |
expertise. If either QA or Comrel gets out of hand there is always |
29 |
the appeal to Council, so neither body needs to be walking on |
30 |
eggshells or taking 18 months to decide to do something about a |
31 |
problem. If QA feels like Comrel isn't taking their complaints |
32 |
seriously, there is the Council - Comrel should be taking their |
33 |
concerns seriously. However, QA needs to recognize that people |
34 |
problems aren't always best solved with the use of command-line |
35 |
utilities. |
36 |
|
37 |
In then end we'll only get where we need to be if we work together, |
38 |
and avoid the passive-aggressive nonsense. If somebody feels that QA |
39 |
is out of line by all means put it on the Council agenda. Otherwise, |
40 |
devs need to do what they can to make the job of QA easier, and not |
41 |
harder. |
42 |
|
43 |
About the only time I really see need for "emergency suspension |
44 |
powers" is in the situation of some kind of hacking attempt. I'm not |
45 |
aware of any attack like this ever being mounted, but if it were the |
46 |
necessary action would involve a lot more than just suspending |
47 |
somebody's commit rights. Probably the best first action would be to |
48 |
disable all rsync/etc distribution, lock down cvs entirely, and then |
49 |
begin cleanup. |
50 |
|
51 |
If there is some kind of general standing problem of Comrel ignoring |
52 |
QA by all means let the Council know (assuming you can't just work it |
53 |
out with them). However, Comrel announced not all that long ago a |
54 |
general desire to enforce CoC with short bans/etc, and that they were |
55 |
interested in having a vital QA organization so that they have some |
56 |
kind of authority to rely on for technical questions. That certainly |
57 |
sounds like a good direction to me, so I don't want to dwell too much |
58 |
on the past. |
59 |
|
60 |
Bottom line - don't be afraid to do your job, and when something gets |
61 |
in the way speak up about it! |
62 |
|
63 |
Rich |