| 1 |
On 08/21/2015 07:39 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that |
| 7 |
>>>> users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Sorry, but that is not accurate. Usage of games.eclass has been |
| 10 |
>>> deprecated by QA [1] (with the council's mandate [2]), so devs should |
| 11 |
>>> not use it any longer. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Maybe QA should be stricter in enforcing its policies, in order to |
| 14 |
>>> avoid such false impressions in future? |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Ulrich |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries#Games_team_policies_issue |
| 19 |
>>> [2] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20140812-summary.txt |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> May I remind you that |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> """ |
| 26 |
>> - Motion: "The council encourages the games team to accept join |
| 27 |
>> requests and elect a lead. In the event they don't elect a lead |
| 28 |
>> within 6 weeks, we will consider the team as dysfunctional and thus |
| 29 |
>> disband it." |
| 30 |
>> Accepted with 6 yes votes and 1 abstention. |
| 31 |
>> """ |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> has never happened? There has been no vote, but the team has not been |
| 34 |
>> considered dysfunctional. Instead we are just acting like it doesn't |
| 35 |
>> exist, more or less. Sounds good? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Well, we did say we would disband it. We just didn't follow through. |
| 38 |
> Would you be happier if we did disband it? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I don't know. Stick to your word, maybe? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
So far, neither the council, nor QA, nor ComRel were particularly |
| 44 |
helpful with the situation. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
And QA "proxying" policy-discussions/decisions for a non-functional team |
| 47 |
is not a solution (the thread has a clear "QA:" prefix and I don't think |
| 48 |
that was by accident). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
If the team is disbanded, then regular tree policy applies and |
| 51 |
everything goes through the regular community discussion/decision |
| 52 |
channels without the need of QA putting their prefixes/hats everywhere. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
If a new team is constituted, then they might establish new policies, |
| 55 |
also without QA dictating anything. And I would give that some time, |
| 56 |
which means don't start funny mass commits/conversions. |
Archives