| 1 |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:40:43PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind |
| 3 |
> of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can |
| 4 |
> be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is either |
| 5 |
> meaningless or violation of scope. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit |
| 8 |
> rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of |
| 9 |
> confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely |
| 10 |
> serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is |
| 11 |
> supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its |
| 12 |
> scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action |
| 13 |
> possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like |
| 14 |
> an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA disciplinary |
| 17 |
> actions independent of ComRel. Explanation for the individual points |
| 18 |
> follow. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would support this because in the very earliest days of the qa team, |
| 21 |
qa actions were independent of ComRel. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have no specific comrel action that I have issues with, but QA actions |
| 24 |
should be independent of ComRel. If there are any reasons to belive that |
| 25 |
the qa team abuses this, that would be a point where ComRel or the |
| 26 |
council could get involved. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives