1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> [...] |
4 |
> Mark, in the discussions about the QA policy, your fallback |
5 |
> justification always seems to be "Trust us". I think this week's |
6 |
> events have put a big dent in the credibility of that argument, if not |
7 |
> holed it below the water line. If the QA team followed processes |
8 |
> similar to what I've described above, I believe that this week's |
9 |
> events wouldn't have happened. What started off as a worthy piece of |
10 |
> QA work, which I'm sure has fixed many real problems for users, |
11 |
> degenerated into something altogether unpleasant and unnecessary for |
12 |
> all involved. We've all gotten a week older and a week greyer out of |
13 |
> this. Have we fixed any real problems that stop our users installing |
14 |
> and running Gentoo? No, we haven't. I hope we can all (and I include |
15 |
> myself in that) learn something from this to prevent a repeat. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I call for Mark's proposed policy to be rejected as it stands. |
18 |
|
19 |
"Trust us" sounds like a good justification to me. If the council grants |
20 |
the QA team the right to preempt maintainers for major QA violations, |
21 |
they will indeed have power and may abuse it. But if their use of this |
22 |
power is obviously abusive, the council can revert its decision and cut |
23 |
the balls from that QA team. So I'm for trusting them and see. We need |
24 |
more QA and they can't do their job properly the way it's working now. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Thierry Carrez (Koon) |
28 |
Gentoo Linux Security && Council Member |
29 |
-- |
30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |