1 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said: |
3 |
>> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, |
4 |
>> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in |
5 |
>> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree |
8 |
> that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds |
9 |
> questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes |
10 |
> up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but |
11 |
> I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances. |
12 |
|
13 |
So if QA thinks one way is right, and the package maintainer thinks |
14 |
another way is right, you say QA always trumps? |
15 |
|
16 |
I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty |
17 |
until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ |
18 |
situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) |
19 |
resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as |
20 |
security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage. |
21 |
|
22 |
Thanks, |
23 |
Donnie |