Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev

[Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>]

On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Futher, no policy was violated, none, whatsoever.
> The "appeal to ..." policy was, but it was a first time event; this

I don't (completely) agree with that, see below:

> 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.

That is what was done, with the members online at #gentoo-qa, where
some of the members did not exactly agree with the act of masking
at the stage we were in.

Still, I see many points where this could have been handled differently,
better,
and I certainly see how you could interpret that bulletin point of the GLEP
differently.

>
>> 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?

I get your point, however, I still believe the related people were
involved by other communication channels.
If use of those other communication channels is so unpreferred over the
mailing list, I believe the QA/council/comrel
whoever is in charge of the policy dictating gentoo-dev being a optional
ML, should review that policy and
make it a mandatory one, if it really is.
It would have certainly made me see things differently right from the
start, that is, what some seem to be after here?
I believe by that, we would have avoided our (you, and me) earlier
"problem" (you know what I'm talking about, no need
to refresh it here.)

>
>> 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.

I suspect we have a slight language barrier here. If you mean if QA should
be monitoring every commit that goes in to the tree and monitor the tree
as whole,
then you would be right. That's what I do daily basis, and I suspect many
others do as well -- being subscribed to the gentoo-commits ML and informing
others of possible mishaps. You don't need to be part of the QA team for
that.
However, that's not what I meant, by 'dictate how others do their work',
I meant
that one literally, let me demostrate with completely made-up example
from the
on-going multilib thread on the ML where yngwin doesn't agree with the
multilib design
model, if he were a QA member and wanted to revert the tree to a state it
was before the conversions, he'd have powers to do that alone.
Note, I do not leverage the use of subslots in tree to the multilib
issue, at all, and I realize
the example wasn't perfect, but it was the best I could come up with
such short notice.

>
>> 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.

I suspect we agree, but have different understanding of 'disagreement'

>
>> 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?

Maybe not anymore, but that's certainly what it looked to be earlier.

>
>> 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.
>

You are right, but that's not what I said.