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

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3405 bytes --]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:22:39 -0700
Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or
> > not?".
> 
> Actually, no. What it is is a "Subject was thoroughly discussed in the
> past, and a decision was made." More than once, in fact. What basis do
> you have that would warrant more bilkeshedding on this subject?

The basis that it has once been accepted as well as another time invited
more discussion, clearly indicates that it needs further bikeshedding:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110308-summary.txt

    * GLEP 48 (QA)
    After a long discussion and a review of the final proposal text, the
    result is the following:
    - vote:
	in favor: scarabeus, ferringb, wired, jmbsvicetto
	didn't state (abstain): betelgeuse, patrick, a3li
->  Given the result, the GLEP update is accepted and can proceed,
    albeit Peteri raised a question how Devrel is going to work out the
    resolution after the process is handled over from QA. It was agreed
    that the part of the text (last sentence of the diff) will be
    updated with string based on what those two teams agree with
    without more council involvment (unless required otherwise)..

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110608-summary.txt

    * GLEP48 review

    Jorge submitted a proposal to the ml to update GLEP48[4].
    After some initial debate over the power granted to the QA team,
    the timeline in case of an escalation to DevRel, the relation with
    DevRel and whether QA should only enforce policies or also take
    part in creating policies, after the request by Patrick, Jorge
->  suggested pushing this back to the mls. Petteri then asked the
    council to at least vote to commit the non suspension related parts
    of the proposal. The diff[5] was approved with 6 yes votes. Alec
    during this discussion presented some thoughts about the QA team[6].

    [4] -
    http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_ac161677a6e06a8647e16420eeae8d47.xml
    [5] -
    http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.txt?r1=1.3&r2=1.4
    [6] - http://pastebin.com/C1jGF1DJ

> It may sound crazy, but it isn't entirely impossible that decisions
> made in the past were not made lightly.

This assumes that the decisions have voted against the matter; however,
they voted for this matter on the basis of a small change to be made to
it (20110308-summary.txt) but that never happened and seems forgotten.

Some developers even refer to Diego having used this power in the past.

> It's also not entirely impossible that one of the reasons such
> decisions are made is so that people can stop rehashing the same
> topics over and over again and focus on more useful and fun topics.

This assumes the topic to be useless or boring; however, that's personal
opinion and there is an useful need for this from the QA, Council and
ComRel perspective. Sometimes we need to deal with a more serious topic.

This is one of those days.

-- 
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 --]