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

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1792 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:00:14 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I
> see is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.

Can you avoid top posting? Had to scroll down to see who you reply to.

> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their
> freely given time nullified and access removed because one person
> thought it was deserved.

We take a positive approach instead, access is "temporarily suspended".

> Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You
> are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you
> really want to send that message?

That is an assumption and depends on the actual message you send to that
person; "temporarily suspending" someone goes with a reason. If that
reason is to talk with the person as to fixing up the breakage, where
afterwards the access gets restored; we're sending a different message.

> Vast wholescale breakage is very rare and not something you can base
> policy on.

Policy is there to prevent wholescale breakage; imagine Gentoo without
a policy present, that would be very rare. What do you then base on?

> Rich's most recent reply is the most sane proposal I've seen so far.
> Revoking access is a human problem and is solved with human solutions.

Which message? Why is it the most sane?

> Do beware the law of unintended side-effects.

Or unexpected benefits?

Yes, a law exists; but what are the benefits compared to the cost?

-- 
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 --]