| 1 |
Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so |
| 3 |
>>>often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think |
| 4 |
>>>it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when |
| 5 |
>>>devrel cannot respond in a timely manner |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action |
| 8 |
>>*and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do |
| 9 |
>>that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>Or am I really missing something obvious? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, |
| 16 |
> thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair? |
| 19 |
Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own |
| 20 |
and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action |
| 21 |
was requested. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sure infra has to pick up the pieces, that's their job. If they don't |
| 24 |
like it and think that $someone is about to screw up something while |
| 25 |
devrel doesn't think so and devrel don't change their mind after a talk |
| 26 |
with infra, even then infra should have *no power* to suspend the dev in |
| 27 |
question. At least that's how I see the infra's role as I already stated |
| 28 |
several times on -core. Politics != system administration. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
-jkt |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives