Il giorno ven, 03/09/2010 alle 19.43 +0300, Petteri Räty ha scritto:
> 
> It doesn't require infra as DevRel has the needed powers to shut down
> access. DevRel is needed any way to process the retirement. I think
> infra should only be the fallback if DevRel people with needed access
> are not available fast enough.

If you couldn't notice, we're explicitly trying to get this done without
DevRel intervention at first.

Right now we have something along these lines:

QA team member finds the screwup → reports to QA lead → ask nicely the
devrel read → devrel can sit thinking about it.

In the mean time, the person who was originally caught can keep
committing, eventually bringing up a problem worse than the previous
one, and so on so forth.

What _I_ would like to see for QA? (and think others would agree)

QA team member finds the screwup → track down another one that agrees on
the problem being big enough → they ask infra to suspend access → devrel
can either negotiate for the reinstatement or proceed with retirement.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/