Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 14:40:52
1 Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind
2 of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can
3 be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is either
4 meaningless or violation of scope.
6 According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit
7 rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of
8 confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely
9 serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is
10 supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its
11 scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action
12 possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like
13 an euphemism for removing commit access permanently.
15 The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA disciplinary
16 actions independent of ComRel. Explanation for the individual points
17 follow.
19 Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set
20 a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA
21 is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo,
22 which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other
23 packages, etc. ComRel on the other hand is concerned in actions having
24 social consequences rather than technical.
26 Secondly, it clearly defines the possible disciplinary actions as either
27 temporary commit access ban, or (in case of repeated offenses) permanent
28 removal of commit access.
30 Thirdly, it removes the unnecessary involvement of ComRel, QA violations
31 being outside of their scope of interest. Each case of QA violations
32 is analyzed by QA team individually, and QA team exercises disciplinary
33 actions independently. At the same time, appeal path via Council is
34 defined.
35 ---
36 glep-0048.rst | 11 ++++++++---
37 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
39 diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst
40 index f9773c0..55a27a2 100644
41 --- a/glep-0048.rst
42 +++ b/glep-0048.rst
43 @@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ tree policies are respected.
44 made by the council.
45 * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not
46 change the fact that it is still a QA violation.
47 -* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
48 - may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
49 - Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel.
50 +* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that
51 + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers
52 + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation
53 + of developer's commit access (ban). In case of repeated offenses, the QA
54 + team may issue a permanent removal of the commit access (retirement). All
55 + the evidence of the violation, as well as ban lenght will be evaluated
56 + by the QA team for each case individually. The disciplinary decisions made
57 + by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council.
58 * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations
59 as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not
60 meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic
61 --
62 2.21.0