From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFp1w-0004KC-Iu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:23:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8F8GNmq003992; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:16:23 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8F8CcIe016747 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:12:56 GMT Received: from user.scort.com ([213.41.103.70] helo=[10.1.10.18]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EFoNv-00077B-RE for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:42:20 +0000 Message-ID: <432925DB.2090801@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:42:19 +0200 From: Thierry Carrez Organization: Gentoo Linux User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050728) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <4326C737.1020704@gentoo.org> <20050913162232.GA18592@cerberus.oppresses.us> <200509131918.23915.vapier@gentoo.org> <43278936.50909@ieee.org> <20050914031019.GA1496@cerberus.oppresses.us> <4328DA59.2030506@ieee.org> In-Reply-To: <4328DA59.2030506@ieee.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4f50b842-4b7c-4f87-a0cb-a40d8a9d691f X-Archives-Hash: b7ac250f73d4468d2f4d459606e748b7 Nathan L. Adams wrote: > What about giving QA temporary revoke powers just like infra (Curtis > Napier's idea), traditionalist? Fixing devrel's resolutions policies and > Curtis' idea don't have to be mutually-exclusive. The idea behind -infra temporary revoke power is to react to emergency situations (as in "we must do something *now*"). Not sure a repeated QA violation would fall into that "emergency" category. The solution is rather to have a devrel liaison inside the QA team (or the other way around). These are not closed groups. We do essentially the same with infrastructure and security, we have liaisons and people that are members of both groups, rather than saying security should have wheel to do security audits and "emergency security fixes". Works a lot better that way. -- Koon -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list