[gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Samuli Suominen]

In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't control
himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
tarnishes the reputation for whole team.

I suggest we hold an early elections to rectify the situation.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
> control
> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.

Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.

But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.

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

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 21/05/2011 02:03 μμ, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>> control
>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
First of all, please calm down both of you. Second, who is eligible to
vote? Do you really think that QA has 14[1] active or semi-active
members who are capable to evaluate the circumstances and vote as
appropriate?

[1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/

- -- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=J43k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 21/05/2011 02:03 μμ, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>> control
>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is
actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own?

Regards,
- -- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=xWTg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Dane Smith]

On 05/23/11 12:22, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 02:03 ¼¼, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>> control
>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
> 5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is
> actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own?
> 
> Regards,

I am following this issue and the bugs with Samuli and Arfrever etc. I
just don't have anything to say. If we feel elections are necessary, I
will participate. I think I am up to speed on all of what's been going
on enough to voice my opinion intelligently.

As to whether or not we need elections early, I don't think we do. I
personally consider this entire issue to be a giant pile of nonsense. We
are arguing over ChangeLogs. I can think of so many more important
important issues than that to find solutions to. We also can easily
automate ChangeLog generation etc as long as we want to log everything,
in which case this entire fiasco would be moot. (There are also other
solutions to this set of problems we could consider.) However, at the
moment, the only thing I see is a pissing match over the current policy.
Both sides have technical merits. However, we are creating a very public
scene with all of this, and that is something I down right do not
approve of. When we want to get back to the technical issue itself, I
will gladly voice my opinion.

I like to think that QA is a decent team of people. I've worked with
most people on the team in the past couple months. Having said that, I
don't think spending an hour or so every month or two making sure
everyone is on the same page would be a bad idea. I also don't think
formalizing some of the procedures etc would be a bad idea. There was
one idea I thought was interesting on bug
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097 comment 51. None the
less, that is all a topic for a separate thread.

Regards,

-- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 24/05/2011 03:01 μμ, Dane Smith wrote:
> On 05/23/11 12:22, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 21/05/2011 02:03 ¼¼, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>>> control
>>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
>>
>>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
>>
>>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
>>
>> 5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is
>> actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own?
>>
>> Regards,
> 
> I am following this issue and the bugs with Samuli and Arfrever etc. I
> just don't have anything to say. If we feel elections are necessary, I
> will participate. I think I am up to speed on all of what's been going
> on enough to voice my opinion intelligently.
> 
> As to whether or not we need elections early, I don't think we do. I
> personally consider this entire issue to be a giant pile of nonsense. We
> are arguing over ChangeLogs. I can think of so many more important
> important issues than that to find solutions to. We also can easily
> automate ChangeLog generation etc as long as we want to log everything,
> in which case this entire fiasco would be moot. (There are also other
> solutions to this set of problems we could consider.) However, at the
> moment, the only thing I see is a pissing match over the current policy.
> Both sides have technical merits. However, we are creating a very public
> scene with all of this, and that is something I down right do not
> approve of. When we want to get back to the technical issue itself, I
> will gladly voice my opinion.
> 
> I like to think that QA is a decent team of people. I've worked with
> most people on the team in the past couple months. Having said that, I
> don't think spending an hour or so every month or two making sure
> everyone is on the same page would be a bad idea. I also don't think
> formalizing some of the procedures etc would be a bad idea. There was
> one idea I thought was interesting on bug
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097 comment 51. None the
> less, that is all a topic for a separate thread.
> 
> Regards,
> 
Dane,

I am not talking about elections. What I want to say is that QA is not a
team. We do not act as team but rather as individuals based on their own
will and temper. A team is supposed to have meetings, take team
decisions, discuss problems and find solutions that are voted by the
majority of the members. Please tell me. Who are the members of QA? Are
all the 14 people listed on the web page? Is this really the QA team?
Does the current situation reflect reality at all? The way I see it. QA
team is actually a group of people with elevated privileges. But
definitely not a team.

Regards,
- -- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=t1F7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Tomáš Chvátal]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 21.5.2011 15:03, Diego Elio Pettenò napsal(a):
> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>> control
>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
Ok, if you guys want new elections lets do it properly :)

I propose this timetable:
27.5. Nominations close - We have the list, new thread is started
3.6. Voting close - New lead selected

Voting will happen over this ML where there will be new mail thread
containing names of all candidates to which each developer is supposed
to reply.

Where QA team size will be determined based on people who bothered to
vote. If a member decide not to vote he will be removed from the QA team
for inactivity (something like mandatory voting).

And also i accept the nomination.

Tomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3bxq0ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdM2QCfeeqmG7CfZRgTS5rblRtk0At3
wCQAn3jN1L3sg0LE1/8tFuxKXTr5zimW
=ueE4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Roman Gaufman]

I vote for Barack Obama to lead the QA team

2011/5/24 Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dne 21.5.2011 15:03, Diego Elio Pettenò napsal(a):
>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>> control
>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
>>
>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
>>
>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
>>
> Ok, if you guys want new elections lets do it properly :)
>
> I propose this timetable:
> 27.5. Nominations close - We have the list, new thread is started
> 3.6. Voting close - New lead selected
>
> Voting will happen over this ML where there will be new mail thread
> containing names of all candidates to which each developer is supposed
> to reply.
>
> Where QA team size will be determined based on people who bothered to
> vote. If a member decide not to vote he will be removed from the QA team
> for inactivity (something like mandatory voting).
>
> And also i accept the nomination.
>
> Tomas
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk3bxq0ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdM2QCfeeqmG7CfZRgTS5rblRtk0At3
> wCQAn3jN1L3sg0LE1/8tFuxKXTr5zimW
> =ueE4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Dane Smith]

On 05/24/11 10:44, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 24/05/2011 03:01 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote:
>> On 05/23/11 12:22, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2011 02:03 ¼¼, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>>>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>>>> control
>>>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
>>>
>>>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>>>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
>>>
>>>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
>>>
>>> 5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is
>>> actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own?
>>>
>>> Regards,
> 
>> I am following this issue and the bugs with Samuli and Arfrever etc. I
>> just don't have anything to say. If we feel elections are necessary, I
>> will participate. I think I am up to speed on all of what's been going
>> on enough to voice my opinion intelligently.
> 
>> As to whether or not we need elections early, I don't think we do. I
>> personally consider this entire issue to be a giant pile of nonsense. We
>> are arguing over ChangeLogs. I can think of so many more important
>> important issues than that to find solutions to. We also can easily
>> automate ChangeLog generation etc as long as we want to log everything,
>> in which case this entire fiasco would be moot. (There are also other
>> solutions to this set of problems we could consider.) However, at the
>> moment, the only thing I see is a pissing match over the current policy.
>> Both sides have technical merits. However, we are creating a very public
>> scene with all of this, and that is something I down right do not
>> approve of. When we want to get back to the technical issue itself, I
>> will gladly voice my opinion.
> 
>> I like to think that QA is a decent team of people. I've worked with
>> most people on the team in the past couple months. Having said that, I
>> don't think spending an hour or so every month or two making sure
>> everyone is on the same page would be a bad idea. I also don't think
>> formalizing some of the procedures etc would be a bad idea. There was
>> one idea I thought was interesting on bug
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097 comment 51. None the
>> less, that is all a topic for a separate thread.
> 
>> Regards,
> 
> Dane,
> 
> I am not talking about elections. What I want to say is that QA is not a
> team. We do not act as team but rather as individuals based on their own
> will and temper. A team is supposed to have meetings, take team
> decisions, discuss problems and find solutions that are voted by the
> majority of the members. Please tell me. Who are the members of QA? Are
> all the 14 people listed on the web page? Is this really the QA team?
> Does the current situation reflect reality at all? The way I see it. QA
> team is actually a group of people with elevated privileges. But
> definitely not a team.
> 
> Regards,

Markos,
I am inclined to agree with you. As I mentioned, I don't think a team
meeting once in a while would be a bad idea. I also like Thomas'
proposed idea to cut anyone from the team who doesn't vote. A little bit
more of team unity / direction would go a long way, especially given the
nature of QA work.

I think this would be a great topic for a new thread. Whoever gets to it
first can start it. =)

Regards,

-- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 24/05/2011 03:54 μμ, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 21.5.2011 15:03, Diego Elio Pettenò napsal(a):
>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>> control
>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
> Ok, if you guys want new elections lets do it properly :)
> 
> I propose this timetable:
> 27.5. Nominations close - We have the list, new thread is started
> 3.6. Voting close - New lead selected
> 
> Voting will happen over this ML where there will be new mail thread
> containing names of all candidates to which each developer is supposed
> to reply.
> 
> Where QA team size will be determined based on people who bothered to
> vote. If a member decide not to vote he will be removed from the QA team
> for inactivity (something like mandatory voting).
> 
> And also i accept the nomination.
> 
> Tomas
I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution.
First we need to clean up the team, then become "team", then have
elections. Having elections right now will just reset the "frustration
counter".

Regards,
- -- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=SzU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1728 bytes --]

On 05/24/2011 04:54 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne 21.5.2011 15:03, Diego Elio Pettenò napsal(a):
>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>> control
>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
> 
>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
> 
>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
> 
> Ok, if you guys want new elections lets do it properly :)
> 
> I propose this timetable:
> 27.5. Nominations close - We have the list, new thread is started
> 3.6. Voting close - New lead selected
> 
> Voting will happen over this ML where there will be new mail thread
> containing names of all candidates to which each developer is supposed
> to reply.
> 
> Where QA team size will be determined based on people who bothered to
> vote. If a member decide not to vote he will be removed from the QA team
> for inactivity (something like mandatory voting).
> 
> And also i accept the nomination.
> 
> Tomas

Still the same as last time, Diego.

The bug didn't change my mind. I like both of you guys and also I kinda
understand both of you, I like your work etc. but I also still think
that Diego is a good QA lead. I simply excluded the bug of my mind for
this vote.

So the current situation (positions/people) are still fine to me.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead

[Luca Barbato]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/28/2011 10:17 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Still the same as last time, Diego.
> 
> The bug didn't change my mind. I like both of you guys and also I kinda
> understand both of you, I like your work etc. but I also still think
> that Diego is a good QA lead. I simply excluded the bug of my mind for
> this vote.
> 
> So the current situation (positions/people) are still fine to me.

I was hoping we could get something different than a vote, anyway, Diego.

lu

- -- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3iBVUACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjQ1EwCgj6B0/k4pkfONZmCl9rZLOc0/
kHAAn1Ats/cbzmzwBue2G4JDoHDqN5/0
=OnKV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----