| 1 |
On 20.6.2013 6.53, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are |
| 3 |
> patently not suited for developing a stable distribution without asking |
| 4 |
> devrel? Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, and |
| 5 |
> executioner argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows (pun |
| 6 |
> intended). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
GLEP 48 as it currently stands on [1] delegates suspensions to devrel. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that you |
| 12 |
> took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to point out |
| 13 |
> that is not your task judging code quality, and yes that does make me |
| 14 |
> uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power at once, and not |
| 15 |
> collaborate with whom should have been involved in the process. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I agree with you that it's not Devrel's job to be in the code quality |
| 20 |
business (which I have also pointed internally). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regards, |
| 23 |
Petteri |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion |
| 29 |
Q. Why is top posting bad? |
Archives