| 1 |
On 12.04.2019 18:19, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what |
| 4 |
>> kind of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances |
| 5 |
>> they can be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is |
| 6 |
>> either meaningless or violation of scope. |
| 7 |
> Comrel is about disciplinary actions, while QA is about the status of |
| 8 |
> the tree. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So you always need ComRel now to confirm obviously made decision. |
| 11 |
Is that how you increase the level of bureaucracy in the distro? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> IMHO we should keep that distinction, and not try to transform |
| 14 |
> QA into a second Comrel. This has been discussed several times in the |
| 15 |
> past, and the outcome always was that QA doesn't need such additional |
| 16 |
> superpowers. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Please stop spreading misinformation, kind of this policy was discussed |
| 19 |
and then developed by Amynka and me past summer, we just did not |
| 20 |
implement it due to internal disagreement. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The distinction that ComRel is about relations between devs / users and |
| 23 |
its consequences while |
| 24 |
QA is about technical violations and its consequences. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Also in my role as deputy QA lead, I find it strange that you post a |
| 27 |
> patch to the mailing list, without first discussing your proposal within |
| 28 |
> the QA team. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Ulrich |
Archives