| 1 |
On 2019-04-29 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> +* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that |
| 3 |
> + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers |
| 4 |
> + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation |
| 5 |
> + of developer's commit access (ban), up to 30 days. In case of repeated |
| 6 |
> + offenses, the QA team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access. |
| 7 |
> + All the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated |
| 8 |
> + and voted on by the QA team for each case individually. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
My opinion here: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
1) The whole requested GLEP change is wrong. It doesn't take into |
| 13 |
account that from my perspective, disciplinary actions should be last |
| 14 |
resort. We don't have a current problem to solve. I acknowledge that in |
| 15 |
the past there was a problem that a requested ban wasn't executed in |
| 16 |
time. I am fine with updating GLEP to indicate that QA has the power to |
| 17 |
do that so it becomes clear that whoever has to execute the ban has to |
| 18 |
follow if that was the reason why the ban wasn't executed in time... |
| 19 |
nothing more. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
2) QA project is only responsible for gentoo.git. That's it. Abusing QA |
| 22 |
project to protect Gentoo infrastructure or any other project is wrong. |
| 23 |
Also, "impacting the work of other developers" is not QA's |
| 24 |
responsibility and due to the fact that you cannot really define that |
| 25 |
sentences, it could be abused to construct a case against any developer, |
| 26 |
QA team wants to get rid of for no real reasons. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
3) 30 days is too long. Like said, Gentoo should never be about |
| 29 |
disciplinary actions but it looks like some current QA members want to |
| 30 |
change that. I am against that change: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If someone is ignoring Gentoo's QA requirements (and not QA project |
| 33 |
rules, remember: QA project is working *for* Gentoo and not |
| 34 |
*against*...) QA project should communicate with that developer. I |
| 35 |
assume that no developer will violate Gentoo's QA requirements on |
| 36 |
purpose. If the developer won't fix/stop violating QA requirements |
| 37 |
(=don't be cooperative with Gentoo) QA project would issue the first ban |
| 38 |
(7d). If developer retains his/her hostile behavior when he/she regains |
| 39 |
commit access, maybe there will be a second ban (this time for 14d). If |
| 40 |
developer still doesn't change behavior and keeps violating rules the |
| 41 |
complete Gentoo project agreed on, ComRel has to take action (and will |
| 42 |
probably have to kick developer out of Gentoo assuming the developer is |
| 43 |
still not cooperating with Gentoo). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
For me the important difference is: Gentoo is not 'real life'. I.e. in |
| 46 |
life you cannot always chose the people you have to deal with. So we |
| 47 |
have laws and policy to be prepared against people we cannot avoid. But |
| 48 |
assuming that everyone in Gentoo is sharing the same goals (for Gentoo) |
| 49 |
and has accepted CoC, a situation like this shouldn't be normal. |
| 50 |
Therefore we don't need to give a project like QA the absolute power to |
| 51 |
protect us just in case of an emergency (we don't really have real |
| 52 |
emergencies, and if I for example would just start to delete/manipulate |
| 53 |
all ebuilds in Gentoo repository I am very sure I would be stopped in |
| 54 |
time and nobody would say "Damn! We can't stop him, we first need a GLEP |
| 55 |
allowing us to..."). |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Regards, |
| 60 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 61 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives