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 4.54) id 1FDePr-0007kH-EE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:11:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1R9AsRb008629; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:10:54 GMT Received: from getafix.willow.local (169.248.adsl.brightview.com [80.189.248.169] (may be forged)) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1R991x0017825 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 GMT Received: from johnm by getafix.willow.local with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FDeNJ-0003X0-AQ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 +0000 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 +0000 From: John Mylchreest To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Message-ID: <20060227090901.GB11804@getafix.willow.local> References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20060226231121.GB11930@dogmatix.willow.local> <20060226232147.37349bc2@snowdrop.home> <44023C9F.9050807@gentoo.org> <20060227001252.GD17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> 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="8GpibOaaTibBMecb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060227001252.GD17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 40433d50-2db2-4f0f-bef3-6bad8e6c6123 X-Archives-Hash: 316a3d6b331abdc20502bcb7c1cd0dec --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:12:52PM -0500, Mark Loeser = wrote: > Alec Warner said: > > This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; "the > > established QA members" ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree > > ( or large subset thereof ) without even necessarily talking to the > > affected developers. > >=20 > > While you may not think that soliciting comments is useful ( and in some > > limited cases I would agree with you ) giving people the opportunity to > > comment also means you just covered your ass, in terms of people going > > "where the hell did that come from?" >=20 > We don't plan on going around and making changes without discussing > issues with the maintainers. We put this in so that if the maintainer > is unwilling to work with us for some reason, that we are able to come > up with what we believe to be the best fix. As I said earlier in the > document, we plan to work as much with maintainers as possible, but > sometimes that may prove to be impossible. In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view. For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump maintainer, then who picks the QA staff? If anyone can become QA staff, then this is questionable in itself. is QA becoming another council with a sole purpose? If so I'd like to see an election again. At the end of the day the pack have to have faith in the team doing the work, and disagreements are obviously contrary to that. --=20 Role: Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515 --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEAsGtNzVYcyGvtWURAhMjAJ9WoXlFJ2ga52R43hK/mZg9FWu7OwCfcmMV N7meu/vdu9vnZcVHHQ0K51w= =oBaO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8GpibOaaTibBMecb-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list