| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:22:39 -0700 |
| 2 |
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or |
| 7 |
> > not?". |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Actually, no. What it is is a "Subject was thoroughly discussed in the |
| 10 |
> past, and a decision was made." More than once, in fact. What basis do |
| 11 |
> you have that would warrant more bilkeshedding on this subject? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The basis that it has once been accepted as well as another time invited |
| 14 |
more discussion, clearly indicates that it needs further bikeshedding: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110308-summary.txt |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
* GLEP 48 (QA) |
| 19 |
After a long discussion and a review of the final proposal text, the |
| 20 |
result is the following: |
| 21 |
- vote: |
| 22 |
in favor: scarabeus, ferringb, wired, jmbsvicetto |
| 23 |
didn't state (abstain): betelgeuse, patrick, a3li |
| 24 |
-> Given the result, the GLEP update is accepted and can proceed, |
| 25 |
albeit Peteri raised a question how Devrel is going to work out the |
| 26 |
resolution after the process is handled over from QA. It was agreed |
| 27 |
that the part of the text (last sentence of the diff) will be |
| 28 |
updated with string based on what those two teams agree with |
| 29 |
without more council involvment (unless required otherwise).. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110608-summary.txt |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
* GLEP48 review |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Jorge submitted a proposal to the ml to update GLEP48[4]. |
| 36 |
After some initial debate over the power granted to the QA team, |
| 37 |
the timeline in case of an escalation to DevRel, the relation with |
| 38 |
DevRel and whether QA should only enforce policies or also take |
| 39 |
part in creating policies, after the request by Patrick, Jorge |
| 40 |
-> suggested pushing this back to the mls. Petteri then asked the |
| 41 |
council to at least vote to commit the non suspension related parts |
| 42 |
of the proposal. The diff[5] was approved with 6 yes votes. Alec |
| 43 |
during this discussion presented some thoughts about the QA team[6]. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
[4] - |
| 46 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_ac161677a6e06a8647e16420eeae8d47.xml |
| 47 |
[5] - |
| 48 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.txt?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 |
| 49 |
[6] - http://pastebin.com/C1jGF1DJ |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> It may sound crazy, but it isn't entirely impossible that decisions |
| 52 |
> made in the past were not made lightly. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
This assumes that the decisions have voted against the matter; however, |
| 55 |
they voted for this matter on the basis of a small change to be made to |
| 56 |
it (20110308-summary.txt) but that never happened and seems forgotten. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Some developers even refer to Diego having used this power in the past. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> It's also not entirely impossible that one of the reasons such |
| 61 |
> decisions are made is so that people can stop rehashing the same |
| 62 |
> topics over and over again and focus on more useful and fun topics. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
This assumes the topic to be useless or boring; however, that's personal |
| 65 |
opinion and there is an useful need for this from the QA, Council and |
| 66 |
ComRel perspective. Sometimes we need to deal with a more serious topic. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
This is one of those days. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
With kind regards, |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 74 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 77 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 78 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives