| 1 |
On 06/20/2013 05:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are |
| 3 |
> patently not suited for developing a stable distribution without |
| 4 |
> asking devrel? Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, |
| 5 |
> and executioner argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows |
| 6 |
> (pun intended). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm not against that, but I prefer setting some fast track involving at |
| 9 |
most 3 people and some procedure also for it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
E.g. : you can ask for 6h suspension on direct request and by contacting |
| 12 |
a single devrel person to get an 1week suspension within 2 days. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that |
| 15 |
> you took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to |
| 16 |
> point out that is not your task judging code quality, and yes that |
| 17 |
> does make me uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power |
| 18 |
> at once, and not collaborate with whom should have been involved in |
| 19 |
> the process. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As said, this whole thing is just an interim solution till fast-path |
| 22 |
procedures get deployed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
lu |
Archives