Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> > I'm not sure that's entirely correct.  I seem to remember at least one
> > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> > policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree,
> > etcetera) that enforcement should be left up to the appropriate
> > managers, not devrel.  The argument was that devrel devs are often not
> > experts in the technical aspects, so it's hard for them to adjudicate
> > effectively.
>
> I should also mention that I'm not advocating this interpretation.  I'd
> much prefer that devrel's scope encompass such technical issues.

I'd prefer the QA project/herd handle this.

In my opinion, devrel should deal in developer pissing matches 
(preferably kicking both parties in the head for fighting), incoming 
devs, outgoing devs, and carrying out punitive measures.

QA involves a helluva lot more then just reacting when people complain 
that XYZ is screwing up the tree; proper QA involves actually 
identifying xyz is screwing up the tree rather then a reactive 
approach.

Essentially, QA requires people actively auditing the tree, deps, and 
nudging devs to stop screwing things up, preferably with advice on how 
to avoid screwing up.  This involves a good chunk of work, and for the 
work to actually go anywhere, there needs to be backing of some sort.

QA has never had true backing beyond (essentially) whining to devrel 
that xyz is breaking stuff.  It's not particularly surprising that 
they haven't been incredibly effective, considering that fact.

Yes, Mr_bones_ will rightfully tear your ass if you keep breaking 
things, but ultimately it's just nagging, if he wants anything done he 
has to present the case to devrel, who may or may not do something.

This setup I view as (bluntly) broke; devrel isn't tracking what's 
going on in the tree, Michael is, further he's tracking who screws 
up and who doesn't on a regular basis due to his scans.  He knows who 
has been naughty or nice, essentially :)

Dunno, my two cents.  Not much for QA being under the auspices of 
devrel for the reasons above, but also keeping things seperated, and 
avoiding more cabal bitching.

Not meaning this to be a slap in devrel's direction mind you; question 
of area of focus.  They deal in hauling in devs, dealing with idiot 
devs, and chucking awol devs; I really don't see how QA falls under 
them beyond potentially the punitive aspect of QA having someone's cvs 
turned off for continually screwing up (willingly or otherwise).
~harring