Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA Proposal v3
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:04:05
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA Proposal v3 by Daniel Goller
1 Daniel Goller posted <444C7B60.1030608@g.o>, excerpted below, on
2 Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:16:48 -0500:
4 > the reason for my feedback was to have things laid out much clearer,
5 > less vague and thus avoid problems down the road by situations occuring
6 > in which things go like "well i thought i (a QA dev) had the right to
7 > ...." or "i (reg dev) didn't know they (QA) could do ..."
8 > be clear on both sides by laying this out so there are no
9 > misunderstandings or misinterpretations
11 Agreed. I'm not prepared to try to argue the definition of "policy"
12 further here, so I'll yield the point. If others find value in the
13 point, they'll take it up. If not, well it must not have been that
14 important to other than you and me after all. =8^)
16 In any case, two things of value came of it. For Gentoo, it provoked the
17 super-majority idea, which may or may not resonate enough to take root but
18 I think it's worth debating, anyway. For myself, I became aware of a
19 word interpretation inconsistency I wasn't aware of, thus gaining insight
20 into myself. Maybe it's me that's out of sync. =8^)
22 --
23 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
24 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
25 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
29 --
30 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list