| 1 |
On 18.04.2019 15:10, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 11:30 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:40 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind |
| 6 |
>>> of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can |
| 7 |
>>> be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is either |
| 8 |
>>> meaningless or violation of scope. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> Is there a particular driver for this change? E.g. have you been |
| 11 |
>> dissatisfied with the current procedure, or perhaps Comrel is not acting on |
| 12 |
>> your referrals? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> [snip] |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> In my opinion, the developers who voted 'no' should simply give up their |
| 17 |
> ComRel hats because they have clearly abused their ComRel position, |
| 18 |
> in order to make judgment outside their jurisdiction, and therefore |
| 19 |
> ridiculed the role given to them by GLEP 48. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
To clarify, ComRel votes count is less relevant than a direct QA lead |
| 22 |
request made to infra. |
| 23 |
ComRel is supposed to "nod", while QA lead is responsible for their |
| 24 |
actions in front of Council |
| 25 |
(as a QA lead is confirmed by Council directly). So this is not an |
| 26 |
option to bypass ComRel if needed. |
Archives