| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700 |
| 2 |
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit rights be |
| 7 |
> > suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually add the |
| 8 |
> > parts of the old patch to the glep that spell out when and how this |
| 9 |
> > can happen. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Thoughts? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, thoughts, absolutely. Asking for QA to be at the same time judge, |
| 14 |
> party and executioner. Need I say more? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That is under the assumption that such suspension is permanent as well |
| 17 |
as that QA is the only judge. However, most mentioned suspensions |
| 18 |
there are temporary and QA needs to bring forward reasoning as to why |
| 19 |
QA has requested the temporary suspension; the final judge here is the |
| 20 |
Gentoo Council just like with ComRel's suspensions. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
QA really is just a party here and has nearly no final power when it |
| 23 |
comes to judging or execution; the goal here is to deal with |
| 24 |
the rather unusual bigger breakages, but if this doesn't go through QA |
| 25 |
can just forward the request to ComRel and have them consider and do it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This patch just came up by a hypothetical discussion where QA was given |
| 28 |
the impression that QA has the power to request this; some of the |
| 29 |
Council meetings back in history seem to approve this patch, others do |
| 30 |
not. It's a rather odd history, and hence we set things straight here. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or not?". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
With kind regards, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 38 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 41 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 42 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives