| 1 |
On 1/19/14, 10:29 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ The QA team should be given certain abilities to look out for the best interests |
| 3 |
> * In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of |
| 4 |
> established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples of |
| 5 |
> disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the policy or |
| 6 |
> whether the solution makes the situation worse. |
| 7 |
> * In the event that a developer still insists that a package does |
| 8 |
> not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. |
| 9 |
> The package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that |
| 10 |
> a decision is made by the council. |
| 11 |
> * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue |
| 12 |
> does not change the fact that it is still a QA violation. |
| 13 |
> -* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA |
| 14 |
> team may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. |
| 15 |
> Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel. |
| 16 |
> +* In case a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the |
| 17 |
> QA lead may request commit rights of that developer to be suspended by the |
| 18 |
> Infra team. Comrel should then proceed to evaluate the situation, by |
| 19 |
> finding a compromise or pernamently revoking those rights. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
+1 (please change pernamently to permanently). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> +* Should a situation arise where a developer causes breakage to the |
| 24 |
> point that it cannot be ascribed to an honest mistake, either the QA |
| 25 |
> lead or two members of the QA team can require the Infra team to |
| 26 |
> temporarily suspend commit access for the developer, pending analysis of |
| 27 |
> the causes and resolution to be provided by the QA team within 14 days |
| 28 |
> of said suspension. Resolution for these kinds of issues is completely |
| 29 |
> in the hands of the QA team, and only the Gentoo Council can revisit the |
| 30 |
> case. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
14 days sounds like pretty long. I recommend replacing that with |
| 33 |
requiring that decision to be validated within 7 days by the QA team |
| 34 |
lead. If he concurs, the next steps are outlined above, just as if he |
| 35 |
himself started the process. If he decides to reverse their decision, he |
| 36 |
can just ask infra and handle the rest of the matter within QA team. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
It's also suspicious to me why not just go to Comrel also in the second |
| 39 |
case, but the draft directly mentions the Council. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Paweł |
Archives