Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sat, 10 May 2014 09:22:37 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> wrote:

> Granted, I'm not sure what you expect anybody to do about the
> tinderbox, as the only thing that requires is somebody to step up and
> just do the work.
>
> I agree with your point that a tinderbox would be useful - adding more
> bug reports to bugzilla is a good thing, and some will get ignored,
> but others will get fixed which otherwise wouldn't be noticed.
> However, I don't really see QA as the thing standing in the way of a
> tinderbox.
>
> Honestly, I'm not a big fan of QA taking on the role of the body that
> makes controversial decisions.  I think they're the right place to
> start with questions like these, but when there is an issue that isn't
> clear-cut I think that is what the council is for.  I'm not saying
> that QA shouldn't ever be able to make policy - only that it should
> use discretion when doing so, and that seems to be what is happening
> here.

+1

True. QA could be perceived as ComRel, but then for technical issues;
where people need to discuss first, after which we can look at it, talk
with everyone and act what is in everyone's best interest.

After that discussion, the borderline on whether or not to contact QA
after such discussion has to do with whether it is a ...

 - Portage tree issue (inconsistency, breakage, repoman, QA, ...)

   => Consider to go first QA, then Council.

 - Something that affects Gentoo in another way (project issues,
   maintainer issues, EAPI changes, GLEP, metastructure, services, ...)

   => Not QA's scope, though we will suggest [and have done so in the
   past with old EAPIs] such matters to the Council if it benefits the
   Portage tree and in particular some issue that is in QA's scope.

This is the case for issues that are or would be controversial; of
course, some non-controversial could skip a discussion, but in general
we need to make sure we don't skip a discussion as otherwise we can't
respect GLEP 48 asking us to act in the best interest of all developers.

This is also what early experience with recent happenings suggests...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D