| 1 |
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 18:23 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:53:21 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > Also, "impacting the work of other developers" is not QA's |
| 6 |
> > > responsibility and due to the fact that you cannot really define |
| 7 |
> > > that |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > For example, it means that the QA breakage you've introduced and |
| 10 |
> > refuse to fix is preventing other developers from working on their |
| 11 |
> > ebuilds. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It is QA's role to jump and fix it to minimize the impact on other |
| 14 |
> developers. And because it is not fun to do so if someone is not |
| 15 |
> cooperating, I believe short bans in the hands of QA's team make sense, |
| 16 |
> even if I dislike the idea. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> [...] |
| 19 |
> > > 3) 30 days is too long. Like said, Gentoo should never be about |
| 20 |
> > > disciplinary actions but it looks like some current QA members want |
| 21 |
> > > to change that. I am against that change: |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Tell that to ComRel. If Proctors reduce their maximum disciplinary |
| 24 |
> > action, I will adjust the spec. Otherwise, this is moot point. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> What's the relation with proctors here? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This is 'inspired' by Proctors. Just like Proctors issue short-term |
| 30 |
actions for CoC violations, QA issues short-term actions for QA |
| 31 |
violations. In both cases, longer actions are deferred to ComRel. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives