| 1 |
On 31/03/14 23:35, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not |
| 6 |
> break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. |
| 7 |
> The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that |
| 8 |
> a decision is made by the council." |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The same GLEP says, |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of |
| 13 |
established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples of |
| 14 |
disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the policy or |
| 15 |
whether the solution makes the situation worse." |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
While other QA members said masking them at the point you masked them |
| 18 |
was already too late for any masking. |
| 19 |
Thus, majority is required here and majority is gained by a vote. |
| 20 |
You are not the sole authority of QA, which I'm extremely happy of. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> We can continue this pointless back and forth for as long as you like, |
| 24 |
> but honestly, there will be no winner, only two losers. Let's just wait |
| 25 |
> for comrel to resolve my complaint against you with no action and move |
| 26 |
> on with our lives. I think we both have better things to do, I know I do. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You are right, no winners here, which is why I'm leaving this reply |
| 30 |
short as per, good advise, from comrel. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- Samuli |
Archives