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 ; 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 , 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 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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 Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list