| 1 |
Am Freitag, 12. April 2019, 17:19:44 CEST schrieb Ulrich Mueller: |
| 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 |
> |
| 8 |
> Comrel is about disciplinary actions, while QA is about the status of |
| 9 |
> the tree. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
comrel is about interpersonal, qa about technical issues. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
qa has always had the power to suspend someone's commit access (as last |
| 14 |
resort). the question that remained open was mainly whether such an action had |
| 15 |
to be "nodded off" by comrel. (which should be a formality anyway, since as |
| 16 |
per responsibility areas comrel can't and won't decide technical issues.) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
a previous council tried to clarify this (long ago), unfortunately someone |
| 19 |
screwed up when writing the summary, so the issue remained on paper undecided. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 23 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 25 |
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives