From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
id 1FDagB-00030L-Uu
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:12:16 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1R5BShC018571;
Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:11:28 GMT
Received: from skinny.southernlinux.net (ns2.rednecks.net [64.192.52.5])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1R59Vp0007245
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:09:31 GMT
Received: (qmail 12380 invoked by uid 210); 27 Feb 2006 00:09:22 -0500
Received: from 10.99.99.199 by skinny (envelope-from <solar@gentoo.org>, uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st
(clamdscan: 0.88/1301. f-prot: 4.4.2/3.14.11. spamassassin: 3.1.0. perlscan: 1.25st.
Clear:RC:1(10.99.99.199):.
Processed in 0.062845 secs); 27 Feb 2006 05:09:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.99.99.199?) (10.99.99.199)
by 0 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2006 00:09:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role
From: Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <440247DE.5010902@gentoo.org>
References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com>
<20060226231121.GB11930@dogmatix.willow.local>
<20060226232147.37349bc2@snowdrop.home>
<20060226233558.GD11930@dogmatix.willow.local>
<20060227000929.GC17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <440247DE.5010902@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Gentoo Linux
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0500
Message-Id: <1141016968.4846.23.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 88cb43cb-a302-4aa7-a6a0-3056f00f5f64
X-Archives-Hash: 84fc0462efa84e7695693f72a6e638a3
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 16:29 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
> > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
> > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
> > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear
> > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.
>
> As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer
> disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a
> higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which
> seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is
> this:
>
> "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the
> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may
> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion."
I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say.
If I had to put a pecking order together how I think it would
look/should be would result in something like the following.
gentoo-(infra|council)
- gentoo-security
- gentoo-(devrel|base)
-gentoo-qa
- gentoo-(hardened|server)
- gentoo-(desktop|misc|maintainers|etc..)
--
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list