1 |
On 7/24/20 4:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> TL;DR: the current punishment-based disciplinary (ComRel/QA) model |
5 |
> doesn't work very well. Most of the time it is tedious and results |
6 |
> in a ban that doesn't solve anything, and effectively ends up being |
7 |
> harmful to users (as a third party). I would like to discuss replacing |
8 |
> it with a model that focuses on improvement and making amends. |
9 |
|
10 |
Sometimes I wish I was banned, so I could keep a two week vacation from |
11 |
any Gentoo related work with good conscience. It's getting pretty |
12 |
stressful with ever-increasing checks, and you need to reserve ~30 |
13 |
minutes to get a clean CI run after anything you've committed. |
14 |
|
15 |
Of course these checks assure a much better user experience, but it's |
16 |
mentally straining on this end. |
17 |
|
18 |
And no, QA is not a monster. I'm not aware of any unjustified bans. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
> Now, if the developer deliberately refuses to make amends, then I think |
22 |
> we shouldn't play cat-and-mouse any longer and immediately go for |
23 |
> retirement. Of course, with possibility of appeal to the Council |
24 |
> and the usual rights but without the 'N bans' game before it. |
25 |
|
26 |
What if this genuinely happened: |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
> QA: developer X, please follow the standards. |
30 |
> [silence] |
31 |
> QA: developer X, ping. |
32 |
> [silence] |
33 |
> QA: developer X, please answer or else... |
34 |
> [silence] |
35 |
> QA: developer X, we issue official warning. |
36 |
> [*shrug*] |
37 |
> <a few warnings later> |
38 |
> QA: we issue 14 day ban for developer X. |
39 |
> dev X: bad QA! I never got any warnings! They didn't really try to |
40 |
> reach out! [to users] I'm sorry, this guy has banned me so I can't bump |
41 |
> Y, it's all their fault. |
42 |
> |
43 |
I'm fine with your solution, retiring the dev if they refuse to |
44 |
co-operate. However I'd like to see a full pseudo-example here what |
45 |
happens before the retirement by Comrel/QA. A list of all steps. And by |
46 |
this time, I'd say to have 1 strike before retirement, with a cooldown |
47 |
of say 1-2 years. Just to eradicate any human errors from the process, |
48 |
and I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance. |
49 |
|
50 |
(Does this need to be GLEPd)? |
51 |
|
52 |
-- juippis |