Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 17:19 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what
> > kind of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances
> > they can be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is
> > either meaningless or violation of scope.
>
> Comrel is about disciplinary actions, while QA is about the status of
> the tree. IMHO we should keep that distinction, and not try to transform
> QA into a second Comrel. This has been discussed several times in the
> past, and the outcome always was that QA doesn't need such additional
> superpowers.

Then how are things exactly supposed to work?  I think you can agree
that the way it's defined now is open to wide range of interpretation.

If I file a bug asking ComRel to consider acting on a developer causing
repeated issues, ComRel's going to close the bug as 'QA business'.  Now,
if I said I'm filing the bug on behalf of QA, QA is going to shot me for
unilaterally requesting something on behalf of QA.

Therefore, according to the de facto policy QA votes first on whether to
ask ComRel to vote for a disciplinary action.  However, by its role
ComRel is not guaranteed to have competence judging QA violations.  How
does this bureaucracy exactly help anyone?

> Also in my role as deputy QA lead, I find it strange that you post a
> patch to the mailing list, without first discussing your proposal within
> the QA team.
>

Are you suggesting that we should handle such affairs in secret, rather
than discuss them in the open?  How does that help transparency,
especially given all the past accusations of making arbitrary decisions
behind the scenes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny