Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:34:20
1 Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind
2 of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can
3 be exercised.
5 According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit
6 rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of
7 confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely
8 serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is
9 supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its
10 scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action
11 possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like
12 an euphemism for removing commit access permanently.
14 The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue
15 short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly
16 to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows.
18 Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set
19 a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA
20 is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo,
21 which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other
22 packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned
23 in actions having social consequences rather than technical.
25 Secondly, it clearly defines the possible disciplinary actions as either
26 temporary commit access ban, or (in case of repeated offenses) permanent
27 removal of commit access.
29 Thirdly, it removes the unnecessary involvement of ComRel in temporary
30 bans, QA violations being outside of their scope of interest. Each case
31 of QA violations is analyzed by QA team individually, and QA team
32 exercises disciplinary actions independently. At the same time, appeal
33 path via Council is left provided.
35 ComRel stays the body deciding for permanent ban and/or retirement,
36 in case of repeated offense.
38 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
39 ---
40 glep-0048.rst | 15 ++++++++++-----
41 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
43 Changes from v1:
44 - QA issues only short-term bans independently, while ComRel handles
45 requests for permanent commit access removal
47 diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst
48 index f9773c0..6b5d031 100644
49 --- a/glep-0048.rst
50 +++ b/glep-0048.rst
51 @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Type: Standards Track
52 Status: Final
53 Version: 2
54 Created: 2006-04-24
55 -Last-Modified: 2014-01-25
56 -Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08
57 +Last-Modified: 2018-04-23
58 +Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2018-04-12
59 Content-Type: text/x-rst
60 ---
62 @@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ tree policies are respected.
63 made by the council.
64 * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not
65 change the fact that it is still a QA violation.
66 -* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
67 - may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
68 - Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel.
69 +* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that
70 + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers
71 + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation
72 + of developer's commit access (ban). In case of repeated offenses, the QA
73 + team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access. All
74 + the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated
75 + by the QA team for each case individually. The disciplinary decisions made
76 + by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council.
77 * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations
78 as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not
79 meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic
80 --
81 2.21.0