| 1 |
On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend |
| 4 |
>> people |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable; |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm |
| 9 |
> still on the fence regarding whether we really need to make this |
| 10 |
> change at all, but things like access suspensions and other |
| 11 |
> administrative/disciplinary procedures should be documented. I think |
| 12 |
> whether this is a matter of public record or not is open to debate, |
| 13 |
> but I don't like the fact that we can really say for sure when/if this |
| 14 |
> has actually happened. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be able |
| 18 |
to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends badly. I |
| 19 |
suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and the number |
| 20 |
of cases where it was the right thing to do is precisely 0. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It was always a case of ill-advised action taken out of frustration, or |
| 23 |
bypass the training step, or don't try hard enough to reach the |
| 24 |
"infringer" and communicate like grown adults. Yup, I did all three. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Suspending an account is a very serious thing to undertake, the effects |
| 27 |
on the suspended person are vast and this power should never lie with |
| 28 |
the person who is feeling the pain. Instead, there are well established |
| 29 |
channels to the body who can make the decision. If QA has a problem with |
| 30 |
a dev for any reason whatsoever, then QA should make a well-thought out |
| 31 |
case to that other body for decision. Anything else is madness and open |
| 32 |
invitation for it to all go south. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 37 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives