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 F3AAB138247 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE4D0E1035; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F88E0F5D for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [114.91.186.16]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 893A833FAF1 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:30:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52DFBABD.8090102@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:34:05 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights References: <20140119050224.GA7898@laptop.home> <20140120035446.063a31be@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52DD2E2A.2020303@gmail.com> <20140121155616.6a8cdf9b@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52DF6C7E.8020908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52DF6C7E.8020908@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2624c2d8-a973-46c4-84e6-c014acef5e84 X-Archives-Hash: 7d08efe25297395444aede5cd6fff584 On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon 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. > > 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. Well ... if these persons actively break things, and endanger others, *and* they don't respond to multiple verbal warnings/threats ... ... what would you do? Every workplace environment and most opensource projects have some mechanism to enforce sanity in such situations, so why not have it explicitly stated so that there's no one surprised when it triggers? > > 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? Yes. And I have no problem being the Evil Guy who pulls the trigger, err, presses the enter key. You are saying that *any* contribution should be accepted just to not hurt someones feelings. Bad news: I don't care about feelings. I care about facts, and results. The *chance* that this happens is luckily small enough, but it does make sense to have an established protocol for such cases. Otherwise any action will be considered "overstepping the boundaries" and/or "breaking the rules", and then there's a huge (social) fallout that could have easily been avoided. Like the discussion we're having now, only amplified a lot. > > Vast wholescale breakage is very rare and not something you can base > policy on. Black swan events are more common than optimists pray for