1 |
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 10:27 +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
2 |
> On 7/24/20 11:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > Per the new process: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > 1. QA communicates with the dev, asks nicely. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > 2. If this fails, QA prepares a reasonable list of tasks to be done |
8 |
> > (usually, fix a reasonable subset of the issues that provoked the QA |
9 |
> > response). Of course, all guidance is provided as necessary and time |
10 |
> > can be extended to account for developer's needs. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > 3. If the developer shows effort to solve the problem, case closed. |
13 |
> > On the other hand, if he refuses to cooperate, QA requests ComRel to |
14 |
> > remove commit access. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > To be honest, I don't think we need '1 strike'. The whole point is that |
17 |
> > if the developer understands the problem and wants to fix it, then |
18 |
> > the problem is solved and there's no harm done. On the other hand, |
19 |
> > if the developer doesn't want to cooperate, then I don't really |
20 |
> > understand the point of a 'second chance' (to do what? figure out a way |
21 |
> > not to follow standards and stay under the radar?) |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> I like it. You changed straight retirement to losing one's commit |
24 |
> access, I'd say it counts as the 1 strike. At least for me. You still |
25 |
> retain your hardworked dev badge and can keep contributing more easily, |
26 |
> but there's a burden of proof to provide to get your commit access back. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> What would be the process of getting it back by the way? Is it through |
29 |
> Recruiters, QA or perhaps even Undertakers? |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
I suppose QA would confirm that the developer has done the requested |
33 |
task and then Infra would grant it back. |
34 |
|
35 |
Otherwise, I guess the dev retains dev status as long as he continues |
36 |
contributing (via proxy?) or gets retired wrt normal procedures. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Best regards, |
40 |
Michał Górny |