[gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions

[Michał Górny]

Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind
of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can
be exercised.

According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit
rights' from ComRel.  This is very unclear, and has been a source of
confusion more than once.  Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely
serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is
supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its
scope).  Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action
possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like
an euphemism for removing commit access permanently.

The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue
short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly
to how Proctors work.  Explanation for the individual points follows.

Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set
a better distinction between QA and ComRel.  In this context, QA
is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo,
which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other
packages, etc.  ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned
in actions having social consequences rather than technical.

Secondly, it clearly defines the possible disciplinary actions as either
temporary commit access ban, or (in case of repeated offenses) permanent
removal of commit access.

Thirdly, it removes the unnecessary involvement of ComRel in temporary
bans, QA violations being outside of their scope of interest.  Each case
of QA violations is analyzed by QA team individually, and QA team
exercises disciplinary actions independently.  At the same time, appeal
path via Council is left provided.

ComRel stays the body deciding for permanent ban and/or retirement,
in case of repeated offense.

Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
---
 glep-0048.rst | 15 ++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Changes from v1:
- QA issues only short-term bans independently, while ComRel handles
  requests for permanent commit access removal

diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst
index f9773c0..6b5d031 100644
--- a/glep-0048.rst
+++ b/glep-0048.rst
@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Type: Standards Track
 Status: Final
 Version: 2
 Created: 2006-04-24
-Last-Modified: 2014-01-25
-Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08
+Last-Modified: 2018-04-23
+Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2018-04-12
 Content-Type: text/x-rst
 ---
 
@@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ tree policies are respected.
   made by the council.
 * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not
   change the fact that it is still a QA violation.
-* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
-  may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
-  Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel.
+* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that
+  negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers
+  or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation
+  of developer's commit access (ban).  In case of repeated offenses, the QA
+  team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access.  All
+  the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated
+  by the QA team for each case individually.  The disciplinary decisions made
+  by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council.
 * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations
   as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem.  The list is not
   meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic
-- 
2.21.0