Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 14:34 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>
> On 12.04.2019 19:12, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> > > On 12.04.2019 18:19, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > IMHO we should keep that distinction, and not try to transform QA
> > > > into a second Comrel. This has been discussed several times in the
> > > > past, and the outcome always was that QA doesn't need such additional
> > > > superpowers.
> > > Please stop spreading misinformation,
> > Where have I spread misinformation? I was referring to past discussions
> > on mailing lists and in council meetings.
>
> And I am referring to the QA discussion, where was decided that we need
> the policy changes.
>
> > > kind of this policy was discussed and then developed by Amynka and
> > > me past summer, we just did not implement it due to internal
> > > disagreement.
> > > The distinction that ComRel is about relations between devs / users
> > > and its consequences while QA is about technical violations and its
> > > consequences.
> > Exactly, and we should keep it this way.
>
> No, this is not what we have now,  we have ComRel as a redundant layer
> in the process of decisions making.
> In the best case ComRel will validate QA decision (which is a waste of
> time, as the decision had been made just before),

Then Infra will validate ComRel decision once again, before executing
it.  Except that Infra doesn't debate for days before doing that.

> in the case of rejection (which was not the case in the past 6 years),
> the QA lead still may appeal to to the Council.

In the case of rejection, I expect a serious (please forgive my
language) shitstorm.  Because it would inevitably mean that ComRel is
making decisions that are outside their jurisdiction, and I believe
Council would have to reconsider the competence of ComRel members
in that case.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny