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 4.54) id 1FDWKo-0000wk-Cq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:33:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1R0WSdp005444; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:32:28 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1R0Srnn031464 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:28:54 GMT Received: from c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([67.171.150.177] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FDWFx-0002hE-HZ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:28:53 +0000 Message-ID: <440247DE.5010902@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:29:18 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060208) 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] [RFC] QA Team's role References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20060226231121.GB11930@dogmatix.willow.local> <20060226232147.37349bc2@snowdrop.home> <20060226233558.GD11930@dogmatix.willow.local> <20060227000929.GC17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20060227000929.GC17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD183A9EABD48D81DDEC111BE" X-Archives-Salt: d19d5482-c8d0-45cc-ad0a-2d4d81d22c2d X-Archives-Hash: ca294aa24a1300e1df3c7162d8c044d0 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD183A9EABD48D81DDEC111BE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Loeser wrote: > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.= As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is this: "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion." Thanks, Donnie 1. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/rule= s.html --------------enigD183A9EABD48D81DDEC111BE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEAkffXVaO67S1rtsRAk9NAJ4sjgJ+tN8oGbrNfIdxPUgQ5UYYqgCg32is H4KcDhKsNzSzKYI7zS9wdPg= =TjX7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD183A9EABD48D81DDEC111BE-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list