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. |
5 |
|
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. |
14 |
|
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. |
18 |
|
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. |
25 |
|
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. |
29 |
|
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(-) |
38 |
|
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 |