1 |
Il giorno ven, 03/09/2010 alle 19.43 +0300, Petteri Räty ha scritto: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> It doesn't require infra as DevRel has the needed powers to shut down |
4 |
> access. DevRel is needed any way to process the retirement. I think |
5 |
> infra should only be the fallback if DevRel people with needed access |
6 |
> are not available fast enough. |
7 |
|
8 |
If you couldn't notice, we're explicitly trying to get this done without |
9 |
DevRel intervention at first. |
10 |
|
11 |
Right now we have something along these lines: |
12 |
|
13 |
QA team member finds the screwup → reports to QA lead → ask nicely the |
14 |
devrel read → devrel can sit thinking about it. |
15 |
|
16 |
In the mean time, the person who was originally caught can keep |
17 |
committing, eventually bringing up a problem worse than the previous |
18 |
one, and so on so forth. |
19 |
|
20 |
What _I_ would like to see for QA? (and think others would agree) |
21 |
|
22 |
QA team member finds the screwup → track down another one that agrees on |
23 |
the problem being big enough → they ask infra to suspend access → devrel |
24 |
can either negotiate for the reinstatement or proceed with retirement. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
28 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |