Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

[Donnie Berkholz]

Mark Loeser wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said:
>> Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
>>> enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first.  If people
>>> believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
>>> council about one of our changes.  Also, we aren't unwilling to hear
>>> alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.
>> As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer
>> disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a
>> higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which
>> seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is
>> this:
>>
>> "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the
>> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may
>> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion."
>
> Which is basically what we are saying.  Stuart seems to be saying to
> leave things "broken" and wait until a higher level decision is made.
> We want to fix it/back it out/do whatever, and then come to some
> resolution later if we couldn't at first.

No, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying. You want to commit
first and let the maintainer bring it to the council. I'm saying the
maintainer has the right to have any non-security commit to his/her
package reverted pending a decision.

The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in
the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.

Thanks,
Donnie