Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:57:05
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel by Thomas Sachau
Hash: SHA512

On 08/14/2011 05:48 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Markos Chandras schrieb: >> On 08/14/2011 05:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>> Markos Chandras schrieb: >>>> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb: >>>>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: >>>>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss >>>>>>>> for the next Council agenda (or a later one). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council >>>>>>>> appointed leaders for QA and DevRel. >>>>>> >>>>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA >>>>>>> and DevRel? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity >>>>>> of Gentoo project. >>>> >>>>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it >>>>> the other way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if >>>>> there is some issue not resolved otherwise. But many other >>>>> projects are always important, since they have to maintain >>>>> things continuously. While the council could still decide, if >>>>> DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some workload away), >>>>> you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain our >>>>> infrastructure, ebuilds or docs. >>>> >>>> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask >>>> and remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is >>>> nothing we can do about that. >> >>> If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they >>> dont even maintain ebuilds to mask and remove. It may result in >>> less QA fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any >>> case, where you need a decision, you could always call for the >>> council. Those projects do just some delegated work, which is of >>> course nice, if it comes to the daily work and also, because it >>> reduces the work, that needs to be done by the council. But >>> neither is unreplaceable and the decisions of both teams can >>> already be checked by the council, so i see no real requirement >>> for additional bureaucracy for those 2 specific teams. >> >> I am not talking ajust about decisions. If QA slacks then will >> then Council step up and maintain the QA in the portage? If devrel >> slacks then will the Council do all the recruitment/retirement? >> These projects are vital for the project. I don't know how to >> explain that in more details. > > Every developer is responsible for the QA of the packages he > maintains. There are of course some mistakes happening and sometimes > someone does something wrong (intentionally or not), but if there is > no active QA team, this just means, that the users will hit those > issues and report them.
Again, all the problems are not the same. There is a vertical relationship in this case as well. Sometimes, you need an active QA to fix a problem before it hits users (remember recent case with broken python + portage )
> this is not the best way, it still does not mean the end of Gentoo.
Well, driving users away is not a good thing either. If you constantly break things they will go away sooner or later. We have already lost a great amount of our former user base and we keep loosing more and more. The numbers of those who are leaving are certainly more than those who are joining.
>>>> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with >>>> ebuild maintenance and portage directly. >> >>> And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the >>> hardware? :-) >> Like I said, this is not related to portage QA. I only care about >> the /usr/portage/* parts and what users see from "outside" > > If the master rsync server refuses to run, this will have an impact > at what users see from "outside" ;-) >
Infra is in a good state so I don't really understand why do we need to deal with this at the moment.
> [SNIP] >> >>> Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA >>> (and DevRel)? >> Ok, and active QA team is a team that fixes severe and other QA >> problems within 24 hours. Moreover, an active QA team should be >> there 24/7 for someone who needs an advice for them or needs to >> complain about a developer that broke portage. If QA was active the >> breakages from Arfrever's commits would have been spotted months >> before a severe incident occurs. > > If your requirement for active QA is that high, i have to tell you, > that practially you will never get the needed manpower together to > meet those requirements. > >
I have high requirement ( which are non-realistic ) so even if we achieve 50% of them would be good enough. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOR/4oAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCjJ8QAIhptFdOzt1Tk3KiBMvJX8Tv kiF7JvHc1kVvUF2DpVKiwTYar6ChF32ZqSTUjEu4Lzm9eBRljVPkRejNwYUlpt7d gApKTasSXwMKM8nVQUVjf/wTpeY+ANOl6bL9tK4EBPDjWkx94ttWa/TvfhOLdb7T w8xg3suaT5JMMlT+igDT84yay+NSxfrkwqRieFp04rr9ZUrKOiX/OwXT91Wa4BnK QL1eXgeNNXhLC/Ok/0YySeOWKdhm/wb81aixhmp0eI8CZTQSCuDKf6sQza0VEjJl hDhH4k9qIbjvUyEC1igcBCIgSIxjf413/39FCYEj9R5QtgwA/7Sdg3NS72mNPxgl omX6KQEAGE64pTYVDvj4B1EZKsInl74t810gPIgESAcxqZm2CFBd4zi2LelMHE4J uJccMgt9AFdX3bjEG5+qqM9RvaRzQH48JqmgYUC9zeRiM6CWzf8VCx1knZWdEv35 3saJVHIesdHyXUgyU/NU/uEPhI98pGOA6k42DY3GHO2iGY5k9d4vzHmNcjJeBlTn 1Zr+6IDVMil8TENImFUJk3GKYY/1ygc2NiU7HxmZ1OvGhW6iV8VWgsyK+C3KgFvL DKbZ3C3mGH71BCf8WcIZsIwDr0IPIDr3wLU679MHBZPAB+zmoin+4/+dYgxIru7E 07TI6oyVCgmYANX36do/ =v6xx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Council appointed leaders for QA and DevRel Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>