Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v3] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions

[Alexis Ballier]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:53:21 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> > Also, "impacting the work of other developers" is not QA's
> > responsibility and due to the fact that you cannot really define
> > that
>
> For example, it means that the QA breakage you've introduced and
> refuse to fix is preventing other developers from working on their
> ebuilds.

It is QA's role to jump and fix it to minimize the impact on other
developers. And because it is not fun to do so if someone is not
cooperating, I believe short bans in the hands of QA's team make sense,
even if I dislike the idea.

[...]
> > 3) 30 days is too long. Like said, Gentoo should never be about
> > disciplinary actions but it looks like some current QA members want
> > to change that. I am against that change:
>
> Tell that to ComRel.  If Proctors reduce their maximum disciplinary
> action, I will adjust the spec.  Otherwise, this is moot point.


What's the relation with proctors here?

> > For me the important difference is: Gentoo is not 'real life'. I.e.
> > in life you cannot always chose the people you have to deal with.
> > So we have laws and policy to be prepared against people we cannot
> > avoid. But assuming that everyone in Gentoo is sharing the same
> > goals (for Gentoo) and has accepted CoC, a situation like this
> > shouldn't be normal. Therefore we don't need to give a project like
> > QA the absolute power to protect us just in case of an emergency
>
> This is not to protect anyone in emergencies.  This is to enforce
> a clear split between handling of social and technical problems.
> ComRel just isn't the right body to judge technical issues caused by
> developers.

What you're missing here is that repeated uncooperative behavior is no
longer technical, this becomes comrel's grounds.

[..]