| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
according to the answer to antarus' question, I understand that in the |
| 4 |
past there were Gentoo developers violating Gentoo QA standards. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
There must be a clear process how to deal with such a situation: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
- Which kind of QA violation can cause a ban? At no time should a single |
| 9 |
QA violation allow whoever is current QA lead or QA team to issue a ban. |
| 10 |
I am not saying that current QA team wants to do something like that but |
| 11 |
we need clear rules everyone can understand. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- It must be clear that a ban is the last resort. I.e. the process must |
| 14 |
define something like a warn system so that the developer violating |
| 15 |
Gentoo QA standards knows that he/she has been warned and if he/she |
| 16 |
won't change his/her behavior, a ban (commit bit will flip) will follow. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- However, disciplinary actions must happen in time. I.e. you cannot |
| 19 |
silently watch and just complain on IRC for x months and suddenly decide |
| 20 |
to issue a ban because QA team just lost patience. That said, an issued |
| 21 |
warning will time out. If the developer in question stops violating QA |
| 22 |
rules for $time, he/she is back at level 0 so that a new issue won't |
| 23 |
trigger an action (keep in mind: We assume that we all share the same |
| 24 |
goals; if there's a hostile developer causing problems all the time this |
| 25 |
is a Gentoo problem, not a QA problem). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
- It must be clear that QA can take actions as last resort. Let's say |
| 28 |
developer X received first strike, don't change behavior, maybe will |
| 29 |
receive second strike and still keep violating QA standards, QA has the |
| 30 |
power to remove commit bit. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
BUT: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
QA actions must be limited in time. After 1 or 2 weeks, commit bit must |
| 35 |
be restored. If the developer in question will keep behavior causing the |
| 36 |
disciplinary action, we can assume that he/she is a hostile developer |
| 37 |
for Gentoo and this will become topic of ComRel. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Based on this, I cannot vote for |
| 40 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/548d9c439a73ae38756c0b92a28137ea: |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The changed text grants too much power to QA project. As said, QA |
| 43 |
project is responsible for QA in Gentoo (technical things in |
| 44 |
ebuilds/eclass in most cases). QA should never have the privileges to |
| 45 |
decide to forcefully retire a developer or should take actions for |
| 46 |
others (like infra, work of others). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Regards, |
| 51 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 52 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives