1 |
On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that |
5 |
>> users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sorry, but that is not accurate. Usage of games.eclass has been |
8 |
> deprecated by QA [1] (with the council's mandate [2]), so devs should |
9 |
> not use it any longer. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Maybe QA should be stricter in enforcing its policies, in order to |
12 |
> avoid such false impressions in future? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Ulrich |
15 |
> |
16 |
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries#Games_team_policies_issue |
17 |
> [2] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20140812-summary.txt |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
May I remind you that |
22 |
|
23 |
""" |
24 |
- Motion: "The council encourages the games team to accept join |
25 |
requests and elect a lead. In the event they don't elect a lead |
26 |
within 6 weeks, we will consider the team as dysfunctional and thus |
27 |
disband it." |
28 |
Accepted with 6 yes votes and 1 abstention. |
29 |
""" |
30 |
|
31 |
has never happened? There has been no vote, but the team has not been |
32 |
considered dysfunctional. Instead we are just acting like it doesn't |
33 |
exist, more or less. Sounds good? |
34 |
|
35 |
It seems, that QA is currently an "intermediate games project policy |
36 |
team". Is that its job? I don't think so. Maybe QA should have _less_ power. |