| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:34:10 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action |
| 5 |
> possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like |
| 6 |
> an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
:=) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
politically correct! |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
[...] |
| 13 |
> + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other |
| 14 |
> developers |
| 15 |
> + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary |
| 16 |
> revocation |
| 17 |
> + of developer's commit access (ban). In case of repeated offenses, |
| 18 |
> the QA |
| 19 |
> + team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access. All |
| 20 |
> + the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be |
| 21 |
> evaluated |
| 22 |
> + by the QA team for each case individually. The disciplinary |
| 23 |
> decisions made |
| 24 |
> + by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I would add maximum amounts of time everywhere here: For the QA ban |
| 28 |
because this effectively still leaves room for "age of the universe" |
| 29 |
long bans and a slightly shorter one for the comrel response to ensure |
| 30 |
no important ban is missed due to people being on vacations. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Depending on that maximum, council appeal may not be needed because |
| 33 |
it'd take longer than the ban length anyway. |
Archives