From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDE31387FD for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5BC5E0AE1; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F927E0ADB for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([94.226.55.127]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id kgfD1n00u2khLEN01gfDXg; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:39:13 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 18:38:44 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ssuominen@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev Message-ID: <20140401183844.6980c898@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <533AE17C.3070605@gentoo.org> References: <5335EE26.1010606@gentoo.org> <53364874.9050603@gentoo.org> <53388280.4010105@gentoo.org> <53390215.80604@gentoo.org> <5339D180.2010309@gentoo.org> <533A5328.1000607@gentoo.org> <533AAFCF.9070600@gentoo.org> <20140401172803.219a51fe@gentoo.org> <533AE17C.3070605@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5f7fde32-cbf6-4ecd-a6fb-b7976026790a X-Archives-Hash: 6cfdf044b5bd085b700e0917a8fa82d6 On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +0000 > > hasufell wrote: > > > >> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. > >> Currently it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with > >> strong hierarchical structure, which is the only thing that > >> enables a quick line of action if needed. And that is one of its > >> purposes, afaiu. > > There is a strong structure present; for policy enforcement and > > breakage prevention, we have the ability to 1) act until there is > > And let's be perfectly clear here, nothing was, or is broken. Or would be; for instance, the PDEPEND. It is usually done in prevention; see it more as a "what if" and less of a "spank for breakage", in this case his decision might have been taken too fast. > Futher, no policy was violated, none, whatsoever. The "appeal to ..." policy was, but it was a first time event; this can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action, that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council. > This is an individual, albeit a QA member, disagreeing with a design > model. How can we disagree with a design model we didn't know about yet? > If joining QA team means you get to dictate, alone, how others do > their work, even when they are not breaking anything while doing so, That is also a part of quality assurance. > without the rest of the team, we'd be setting a bad precedence. Per the GLEP; when there is disagreement, the rest can vote on it; beyond that, there's also the Council. > The QA membership is not a large trout you get to bash others with > when you feel like it. Of course; but this isn't what is happening, is it? > Otherwise everyone would be lining up the QA team membership just to > protect their work from others. Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo; and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo. -- 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