Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:28:02
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans) by "Michał Górny"
1 On 7/24/20 11:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 >
3 > Per the new process:
4 >
5 > 1. QA communicates with the dev, asks nicely.
6 >
7 > 2. If this fails, QA prepares a reasonable list of tasks to be done
8 > (usually, fix a reasonable subset of the issues that provoked the QA
9 > response). Of course, all guidance is provided as necessary and time
10 > can be extended to account for developer's needs.
11 >
12 > 3. If the developer shows effort to solve the problem, case closed.
13 > On the other hand, if he refuses to cooperate, QA requests ComRel to
14 > remove commit access.
15 >
16 > To be honest, I don't think we need '1 strike'. The whole point is that
17 > if the developer understands the problem and wants to fix it, then
18 > the problem is solved and there's no harm done. On the other hand,
19 > if the developer doesn't want to cooperate, then I don't really
20 > understand the point of a 'second chance' (to do what? figure out a way
21 > not to follow standards and stay under the radar?)
22 >
23 I like it. You changed straight retirement to losing one's commit
24 access, I'd say it counts as the 1 strike. At least for me. You still
25 retain your hardworked dev badge and can keep contributing more easily,
26 but there's a burden of proof to provide to get your commit access back.
28 What would be the process of getting it back by the way? Is it through
29 Recruiters, QA or perhaps even Undertakers?
31 -- juippis


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature