Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: qa@g.o, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v3] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:07:58
1 Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind
2 of disciplinary actions can be issued by QA and under what circumstances
3 they can be exercised.
5 According to the old wording, QA could only request 're-evaluating
6 commit rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source
7 of confusion. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely serves
8 as a proxy executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is supposed
9 to make independent judgment (which would be outside its scope).
10 Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action possible would
11 be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like an euphemism for
12 removing commit access permanently.
14 The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue
15 short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly
16 to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows.
18 Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set
19 a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA
20 is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo,
21 which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other
22 packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned
23 in actions having social consequences rather than technical.
25 Secondly, it clearly defines that the QA team can issue a temporary ban
26 (with the upper limit of 30 days, same as Proctors) via an internal team
27 vote. In this case there is no necessity of involving ComRel, and QA
28 can request executing this disciplinary decision straight from Infra.
30 Thirdly, the old policy is clarified as applying to permanent bans.
31 In case of repeated offenses, QA requests ComRel to evaluate the case.
33 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>
34 ---
35 glep-0048.rst | 14 +++++++++-----
36 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
38 Changes in v3:
39 * improved the commit message to remove v1 cruft
40 * specified upper limit of ban length to 30 days
41 (lack of this was pointed out by ulm)
42 * removed duplicate notion of Council appeal
44 diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst
45 index f9773c0..8625b6f 100644
46 --- a/glep-0048.rst
47 +++ b/glep-0048.rst
48 @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Type: Standards Track
49 Status: Final
50 Version: 2
51 Created: 2006-04-24
52 -Last-Modified: 2014-01-25
53 -Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08
54 +Last-Modified: 2019-04-29
55 +Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2019-04-12
56 Content-Type: text/x-rst
57 ---
59 @@ -76,9 +76,13 @@ tree policies are respected.
60 made by the council.
61 * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not
62 change the fact that it is still a QA violation.
63 -* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
64 - may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
65 - Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel.
66 +* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that
67 + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers
68 + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation
69 + of developer's commit access (ban), up to 30 days. In case of repeated
70 + offenses, the QA team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access.
71 + All the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated
72 + and voted on by the QA team for each case individually.
73 * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations
74 as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not
75 meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic
76 --
77 2.21.0