| 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/ |
Archives