Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:24 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
> I'd advise for extra care with Council doing things like that.

Agree.  Would love to see the QA team chime in here.  Would also love
to hear concrete proposals.

>
> a) Who would be the lead of that new QA project?

I think getting the concepts right is more important than picking the
lead, but I'm sure there will be a lead so if there is interest
somebody will need to step up.  That said, I would prefer to see the
Council decide on direction and put out a call for volunteers - some
might be reluctant to step up and create a stir if the status quo is
maintained.

>
> b) Given special role of QA, how to address having some bar on who can
> and who can't be a member of QA team at given moment? Or should there be
> some "levels" like in security team, indicating what actions can and
> can't be done on behalf of the QA team?

Not sure we could ever codify anything like this.  Instead I'd prefer
accountability - see below.

>
> c) Any comments on <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html>?
> Especially these:
>
> - "The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or public
> election among the members of the team."

Honestly, I'd suggest that the QA lead be appointed by the Council
following election.  I'd also suggest that the existing QA team
collectively issue a recommendation for that position.  The Council
would not be required to go with that recommendation, but it would be
strongly encouraged that they do so.  In this way the QA team has a
clear mandate, and is accountable.

>
> - "The QA team lead must approve developers who would like to join the
> project."

I think this should remain in place.  With the lead being accountable
for the actions of the team, they should have the authority to manage
the team.  The lead could also delegate authority in the role as
appropriate - perhaps a small team would be able to take action on QA
issues, and a larger team could perform QA-like activities that are
less authoritative such as testing, tinderboxes, or other volunteer
activities.  I think we need to get beyond the concept of QA being
somebody carrying a club - in this way even non-devs could
participate.  That said, having a mandate from the elected Council
would actually increase the authority of the QA team.

As with Devrel/etc issues could be appealed to Council, who would be
expected to support the QA lead they appointed unless things got out
of hand.

A system like this creates accountability all around, with the
developer community holding the final say in the election of the
Council.

Rich