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 1EFExA-0000TH-Ei for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:52:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8DHl6UZ008099; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:47:06 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 j8DHjRI1027202 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:45:27 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EFEuw-0002q7-3L for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:50:02 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:50:00 -0500 From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC Message-ID: <20050913175000.GA6629@nightcrawler> References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <1126560585.7339.5.camel@localhost> <20050912220029.GX9414@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> <200509122159.32575.vapier@gentoo.org> <43265B48.6050506@ieee.org> <4326A271.1020903@gentoo.org> <4326C737.1020704@gentoo.org> <20050913162232.GA18592@cerberus.oppresses.us> <20050913164043.GZ9414@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> <20050913165118.GB9414@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050913165118.GB9414@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f0eb8c2f-9c70-4b0c-816d-b8fcf5c43aca X-Archives-Hash: dfb88822a0d5e3d824732a76feac6944 --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT] > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one > > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical > > policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree, > > etcetera) that enforcement should be left up to the appropriate > > managers, not devrel. The argument was that devrel devs are often not > > experts in the technical aspects, so it's hard for them to adjudicate > > effectively. =20 >=20 > I should also mention that I'm not advocating this interpretation. I'd > much prefer that devrel's scope encompass such technical issues. I'd prefer the QA project/herd handle this. In my opinion, devrel should deal in developer pissing matches=20 (preferably kicking both parties in the head for fighting), incoming=20 devs, outgoing devs, and carrying out punitive measures. QA involves a helluva lot more then just reacting when people complain=20 that XYZ is screwing up the tree; proper QA involves actually=20 identifying xyz is screwing up the tree rather then a reactive=20 approach. Essentially, QA requires people actively auditing the tree, deps, and=20 nudging devs to stop screwing things up, preferably with advice on how=20 to avoid screwing up. This involves a good chunk of work, and for the=20 work to actually go anywhere, there needs to be backing of some sort. QA has never had true backing beyond (essentially) whining to devrel=20 that xyz is breaking stuff. It's not particularly surprising that=20 they haven't been incredibly effective, considering that fact. Yes, Mr_bones_ will rightfully tear your ass if you keep breaking=20 things, but ultimately it's just nagging, if he wants anything done he=20 has to present the case to devrel, who may or may not do something. This setup I view as (bluntly) broke; devrel isn't tracking what's=20 going on in the tree, Michael is, further he's tracking who screws=20 up and who doesn't on a regular basis due to his scans. He knows who=20 has been naughty or nice, essentially :) Dunno, my two cents. Not much for QA being under the auspices of=20 devrel for the reasons above, but also keeping things seperated, and=20 avoiding more cabal bitching. Not meaning this to be a slap in devrel's direction mind you; question=20 of area of focus. They deal in hauling in devs, dealing with idiot=20 devs, and chucking awol devs; I really don't see how QA falls under=20 them beyond potentially the punitive aspect of QA having someone's cvs=20 turned off for continually screwing up (willingly or otherwise). ~harring --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJxFIvdBxRoA3VU0RAlOpAKCMd0X/uGpdwLTb2HTo5FXpoHKFLgCfbKVp zAW8RwlW7oEYKxZcMWW0tdE= =EMis -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list