From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64490-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AEAD138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:23:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75B74E0E3A;
	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:23:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com (mail-bk0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67479E0DFC
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ej10so463864bkb.7
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:23:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
         :subject:to:content-type;
        bh=s80RSGrzCZNjCyHKu2e97VVitOlECIbKt4Q9XA1TN0k=;
        b=FOlAUljImEFZdAiZfidoElZNQXXKYN7oYguSttHtdnzSCzspv2UylkUs0HZk9SSWQg
         bE41GCTlUAEqaoabZdavPPHxzidSnKRJPdWMRFvMsdtVy2BIMZ0qOO1FHx7DN+MrkZVq
         IrEXd2cpSH8QPtHtsjsH8gQfN731sat6ypWeBJADKnLorevm5bcW8LkeYI9sBvcFWVKU
         r4k1OR+KSRBozJIrhNFKmgbXGSd04UbG1Im01Lp+a2moI3/XU0Haft5VxN+ohTaVlv4E
         tyE/1CRV06mTfAPolkFh1xsxuLOEmpcVFs+xYdoDgLQ/xo4KW/djniVnaZO27YanTwlN
         5gow==
X-Received: by 10.204.172.145 with SMTP id l17mr8444614bkz.26.1390180999740;
 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:23:19 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: denis.dupeyron@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.170.139 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:22:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140120020137.111b36bf@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
References: <20140119050224.GA7898@laptop.home> <CA+CSuA+jRBJUqfsTm5uW6vxjJkOYxJwo8e3fyKjScNhXb_d=-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140120020137.111b36bf@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:22:39 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rNU4ggRflUbdcRm-R03s2xX70qE
Message-ID: <CA+CSuALpkmxifRWN8cRxPwbU5w_1SjmFJBgJg3egyDzwNX-gPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: formally allow qa to suspend commit rights
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 7041a3a2-5f0c-470d-ad29-ef62617a72e6
X-Archives-Hash: bea87b4ab49c794c9238bc2772f5975b

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or not?".

Actually, no. What it is is a "Subject was thoroughly discussed in the
past, and a decision was made." More than once, in fact. What basis do
you have that would warrant more bilkeshedding on this subject?

It may sound crazy, but it isn't entirely impossible that decisions
made in the past were not made lightly. It's also not entirely
impossible that one of the reasons such decisions are made is so that
people can stop rehashing the same topics over and over again and
focus on more useful and fun topics.

Denis.