Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1723 bytes --]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit rights be
> > suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually add the
> > parts of the old patch to the glep that spell out when and how this
> > can happen.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Yes, thoughts, absolutely. Asking for QA to be at the same time judge,
> party and executioner. Need I say more?

That is under the assumption that such suspension is permanent as well
as that QA is the only judge. However, most mentioned suspensions
there are temporary and QA needs to bring forward reasoning as to why
QA has requested the temporary suspension; the final judge here is the
Gentoo Council just like with ComRel's suspensions.

QA really is just a party here and has nearly no final power when it
comes to judging or execution; the goal here is to deal with
the rather unusual bigger breakages, but if this doesn't go through QA
can just forward the request to ComRel and have them consider and do it.

This patch just came up by a hypothetical discussion where QA was given
the impression that QA has the power to request this; some of the
Council meetings back in history seem to approve this patch, others do
not. It's a rather odd history, and hence we set things straight here.

It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or not?".

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]