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 1EFKY4-0000jf-J1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:50:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8DNjR9O021229; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:45:28 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 j8DNgm0a010229 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:42:48 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFKUo-0005kk-Pd for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:47:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 6753 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 19:44:23 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 19:44:23 -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 19:47:28 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509131906.08912.vapier@gentoo.org> <4327613B.80409@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4327613B.80409@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: <200509131947.28908.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 3088e5f2-3d08-4f67-b071-a4a00872940f X-Archives-Hash: 453638d3988ba7b043f28a87e9a6944e On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:31 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which has > > no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. devrel has > > all of these. > > And devrel is the wrong group to handle it, so QA needs to come up with > some guidelines. as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that they handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access so if you wish to change that, feel free to start up a new thread -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list