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 4.43) id 1EFHxk-0000gg-82 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:05:08 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8DKxn6J021216; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:59:49 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8DKw7eI011692 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:58:08 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFHvP-0002Wc-DF for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:02:43 +0000 Received: (qmail 6694 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 16:59:42 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 16:59:42 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:02:45 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509131620.06192.vapier@gentoo.org> <432739E2.1070108@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <432739E2.1070108@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509131702.45512.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 83dd5a5f-cae4-43a6-b1f2-e02ec6e9c846 X-Archives-Hash: bee53ee467ddf9fa62b5e901836f5984 On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in > > the previous discussions on the devrel list > > > > besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap > > themselves than ever contacting devrel :P > > It's very relevant, because it supports the idea of QA taking care of > technical issues on its own. QA can work faster since it's less objected > do and doesn't need endless committees and documentation -- the > documentation is the broken code. QA team does not care at all about inner workings of devrel QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands off the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done with the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list