Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1673 bytes --]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:03:09 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:50:57 +0100
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:26:01 -0600
> > Steev Klimaszewski <steev@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > There is more to it than that.  Normally discussions can be good,
> > > but when you try to talk to a brick wall, it's absolutely
> > > pointless.
> > 
> > QA team's decisions require more than a flip of a dime; it takes a
> > little more involvement, as well as solid evidence and reasoning.
> 
> Why?

Because QA team's decisions are decided on during a QA team meeting
that happens once a month, just like the Gentoo Council does; it
requires us to talk about it and work towards a decision, otherwise a
statement can't be formed and we can't vote on that statement.

If we were brick walls, this policy would never get formed; exactly the
opposite is happening here, after the reason that I was asking for here
became clear in #gentoo-dev we are going to further discuss it to adapt.

The solid evidence (that it can be misinterpreted) and reasoning (that
its misinterpretations lead to situations that we don't want) both are
sufficient to revise the policy. Without those, we get what you see in
this thread; the lack of evidence and reasoning not showing why the
policy in its current form would cause breakage, or why particular
other solutions would work out well.

-- 
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 --]