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

[Mikle Kolyada]

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),
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.

I also want to point out that the change brings nothing new to the
policy, this just sets back these bits QA team lost
in approximately 2011 (needs double check), due to number of unjustified
decisions. I failed to recall unjustified actions
since then (especially after QA team was revived), so I fail to realize
why should not be the QA team fully independent this way,
especially taking into account that decisions still may be appealed to
the Council (as well as ComRel ones).

>
> Ulrich