Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:56:02
Message-Id: 20190423205554.udh24wls3iq5p4pn@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions by "Andreas K. Huettel"
1 On 19-04-13 18:30:18, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
2 > > Yes, I am dissatisfied. I am especially dissatisfied by the absurd
3 > > bureaucracy and unclear jurisdiction. I've seen QA claiming we don't
4 > > have authority and sending me to ComRel, and being sent back to QA
5 > > because 'it's QA business'.
6 >
7 > I would like to support that this needs clarification. We have seen too many
8 > things bounced back and forth between qa and comrel and come to nothing in the
9 > past.
10 >
11 > * person X commits crap (as per qa guideline)
12 > * someone Y complains (shouts at him)
13 > * person X continues to commit crap
14 > * qa leaves a marked statement
15 > * person X continues to commit crap
16 > * Y shouts more
17 > * X complains to comrel
18 > * qa asks comrel to do something
19 > * comrel is more worried about Y than about X
20 > ("X is technical issue, not our business")
21 > ...
22 >
23 > please fill in your own preference for x and y
24 >
25
26 Perhaps QA can refer to council as tech stuff is their domain and seems
27 like the right escalation path (to me). They meet monthly but I'm not
28 sure comrel is much quicker (honestly don't know). One of the council
29 members could possibly push for quicker 'discipline' but I'd rather not
30 rush that aspect.
31
32 --
33 Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

Attachments

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