Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:21:45
Message-Id: a0a4290d-beea-1a1a-f0ca-547960aa7d39@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions by Alexis Ballier
1 Alexis Ballier schrieb:
2
3 > I would add maximum amounts of time everywhere here: For the QA ban
4 > because this effectively still leaves room for "age of the universe"
5 > long bans and a slightly shorter one for the comrel response to ensure
6 > no important ban is missed due to people being on vacations.
7
8 If we agree that QA bans are emergency powers *only* to avert breakage
9 reaching users, and/or causing unreasonable amounts of work for other
10 developers to undo, then that would implicitly limit the time of a ban to
11 whenever the next ComRel/Council meeting can discuss this incident.
12
13 Afterwards it will either be lifted or turned into a ComRel ban.
14
15 > Depending on that maximum, council appeal may not be needed because
16 > it'd take longer than the ban length anyway.
17
18 I think that ComRel review of the QA emergency decision should be the default
19 unless the disciplinary action has expired or was lifted in the meantime.
20
21 But even so, if some QA decision is questionable, bringing it before Council
22 is good irrespective of whether it is a past or current matter.
23
24
25 Best regards,
26 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>