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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GJmob-0007BP-Kh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:54:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k837s3Ma022624; Sun, 3 Sep 2006 07:54:03 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k837pQth010383 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2006 07:51:26 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A187B6477D for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2006 06:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23703-09 for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2006 06:11:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A18B6472D for ; Sun, 3 Sep 2006 06:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GJlCU-0007ft-AJ for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:11:22 +0200 Received: from static24-72-114-127.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.114.127]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:11:22 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic.sk by static24-72-114-127.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:11:22 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for September Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:11:23 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20060901095047.2EEE3648F4@smtp.gentoo.org> <20060902000853.GM32359@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <1157141499.7064.10.camel@edge> <44FA1D6E.5040703@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-114-127.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0a1 (X11/20060902) In-Reply-To: <44FA1D6E.5040703@gentoo.org> Sender: news X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599] X-Spam-Score: -2.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 4959a0f3-1f74-419f-a9de-fe128230c630 X-Archives-Hash: c7d84e17dc323471db1e32b75eb9ea43 Alec Warner wrote: > needs as far as QA. Last year Halcy0n petitioned for power for the QA > team; it was quite like a ball crushing power (fix it or we will) and it > seemed to have all kinds of frictional issues. This being a global > issue I would like to hear thoughts on how this could be done better; or > we can abandon the idea of a QA team. I don't recall that it was that heavy handed at all. It said that the QA team would work with maintainers to improve the quality of the tree, and only in *emergency* situations would be empowered to take necessary measures to address the issue. The major point of contention seemed to concern the situation where QA and maintainers strongly disagreed on whether or not a QA problem actually exists and were unable to come to a resolution between themselves. In that case, the issue would be appealed to the council for judgement. Now it also stated that the QA team had veto power over the maintainer until the council can come to a decision. I personally don't agree with this at all, except in the case of security related issues. Even so, I think this falls more under the umbrella of the security team rather than QA. I do believe the QA team should have the ability to make trivial changes to ebuilds (such as obvious typos and other minor issues), but all effort should probably be made to first discuss these issues with the maintainers themselves. Veto power *needs* to be the absolute last resource, and should very rarely, if ever, be necessary. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list