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 1EFhLN-0000bZ-Un
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:11:14 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8F05hgv028957;
	Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:05:43 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 j8F03xAo010843
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:04:00 GMT
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org)
	by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EFhJ2-0000b3-Ae
	for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:08:48 +0000
Received: (qmail 8260 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2005 20:05:25 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2)
  by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2005 20:05:25 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Organization: wh0rd.org
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:08:50 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <20050914045740.GA4006@cerberus.oppresses.us> <4328B62D.3060105@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <4328B62D.3060105@gentoo.org>
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: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200509142008.50385.vapier@gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: f7df6185-252f-4dc3-ac14-a4525172e3dc
X-Archives-Hash: 5d4ab65c2322281dca50c08ff1e1893f

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 07:45 pm, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> >>I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
> >>competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
> >>sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the
> >>tree until devrel has a chance to look over the evidence and come to a
> >>decision. This would fix the problem of "devrel takes to long" plus it
> >>would really help to ensure higher quality work is submitted (because
> >>ebuild devs WILL stop purposely commiting bad work if they know a QA
> >>team member can take away their write access at a moments notice for
> >>repeated violations).
> >
> > The other thing that'd fix the 'devrel takes so long' problem would be
> > if people would let devrel fix its resolution policies 8) (see recent
> > -devrel ml thread)
>
> It's not about devrel taking a long time. Please don't think that I was
> bashing devrel in any way, in fact I have great respect for the devrel
> members. I know what a thankless task they have taken on and the
> bullshit they have to put up with on an almost daily basis. Kudos to you.

his comment wasnt directed at you in any way, it was to try and get support 
for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list