Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] More improvement-targeted approach to disciplinary actions (aka removing bans)

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 10:27 +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> On 7/24/20 11:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Per the new process:
> >
> > 1. QA communicates with the dev, asks nicely.
> >
> > 2. If this fails, QA prepares a reasonable list of tasks to be done
> > (usually, fix a reasonable subset of the issues that provoked the QA
> > response).  Of course, all guidance is provided as necessary and time
> > can be extended to account for developer's needs.
> >
> > 3. If the developer shows effort to solve the problem, case closed.
> > On the other hand, if he refuses to cooperate, QA requests ComRel to
> > remove commit access.
> >
> > To be honest, I don't think we need '1 strike'.  The whole point is that
> > if the developer understands the problem and wants to fix it, then
> > the problem is solved and there's no harm done. On the other hand,
> > if the developer doesn't want to cooperate, then I don't really
> > understand the point of a 'second chance' (to do what?  figure out a way
> > not to follow standards and stay under the radar?)
> >
> I like it. You changed straight retirement to losing one's commit
> access, I'd say it counts as the 1 strike. At least for me. You still
> retain your hardworked dev badge and can keep contributing more easily,
> but there's a burden of proof to provide to get your commit access back.
>
> What would be the process of getting it back by the way? Is it through
> Recruiters, QA or perhaps even Undertakers?
>

I suppose QA would confirm that the developer has done the requested
task and then Infra would grant it back.

Otherwise, I guess the dev retains dev status as long as he continues
contributing (via proxy?) or gets retired wrt normal procedures.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny