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 1EFIDT-0002D3-8f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:21:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8DLG5Nv008673; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:16:05 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 j8DLENd5018919 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:14:23 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 1EFIBB-0008Hi-7b for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:19:01 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:18:56 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC Message-ID: <20050913211856.GB6179@nightcrawler> References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509131620.06192.vapier@gentoo.org> <432739E2.1070108@gentoo.org> <200509131702.45512.vapier@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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509131702.45512.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 4695e1d0-1649-4d47-a53a-51302b987740 X-Archives-Hash: dba73e1b2620b73cdf288f006a91611b --oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > 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 belong= s 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. >=20 > QA team does not care at all about inner workings of devrel >=20 > QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands= off=20 > the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done wit= h=20 > the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve Pretty much is what I'm after; just want to ensure no more scenarios where stuff gets left broken for 18 months (actual example) due to QA=20 having no means to force people to fix their cruft. This need a proposal, or can the council just do a "make it so" ? ~harring --oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJ0JAvdBxRoA3VU0RAnuQAKC23HXCNTYNLflVhywElkOPSpqMoQCglTBx 1+Zvh78sEDxqCDN9gC0A8pY= =0GGK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list