Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, qa@g.o, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:19:53
Message-Id: 20190412161946.GB14134@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions by William Hubbs
1 On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:10:39AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:40:43PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind
4 > > of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can
5 > > be exercised. Remove the unclear reference to ComRel that is either
6 > > meaningless or violation of scope.
7 > >
8 > > According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit
9 > > rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of
10 > > confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely
11 > > serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is
12 > > supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its
13 > > scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action
14 > > possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like
15 > > an euphemism for removing commit access permanently.
16 > >
17 > > The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA disciplinary
18 > > actions independent of ComRel. Explanation for the individual points
19 > > follow.
20 >
21 > I would support this because in the very earliest days of the qa team,
22 > qa actions were independent of ComRel.
23 >
24 > I have no specific comrel action that I have issues with, but QA actions
25 > should be independent of ComRel. If there are any reasons to belive that
26 > the qa team abuses this, that would be a point where ComRel or the
27 > council could get involved.
28
29 There are things I would definitely change about the past though.
30
31 In the past, the qa lead was the one who could go directly to
32 infrastructure on his own and ask for people to be blocked. I think the
33 only way this should happen is after a majority vote on the qa team.
34
35 Also, this definitely should not be the first step the qa team takes.
36
37 William

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies