Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El dom, 06-04-2014 a las 13:02 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
[...]
> The only thing that strongly concerns me here was the revert of a QA
> mask.  Not only is this a policy violation, but it is an abuse of cvs
> commit rights.  I don't care for some of the attitude on the lists,
> and perhaps some reading this don't care for my own opinion.  I think
> we need to draw a harder line when it comes to cvs access.  As
> developers we effectively have root access to each other's boxes, and
> to those belonging to every member of the community.  Granted, this
> was a fairly minor abuse of commit rights as such things go, and I'm
> fine with a fairly minor response.  I just get concerned when people
> intentionally violate policy with regard to commits and are apparently
> unrepentant about it (at least on the lists, and I do want to leave it
> in Comrel's hands because I don't think that impersonal idealism is
> the best way to handle the dispensing of "justice").
> 
> If you're the victim of QA abuse, complain, and do it as loudly (but
> constructively) as you wish.  If the situation doesn't get resolved,
> hold the Council accountable, and vote us out if necessary.  What we
> must not be doing is getting into commit wars.

I think that one step to try to fix things like this would be to clarify
how QA decisions need to be taken. Looks like there was some confusion
related with how many QA team members were in favor and against of
hardmasking the new *udev* virtuals and, then, this lead to the whole
problem escalation. What we should try to do is to clarify how QA
decisions need to be taken. Do they need to be approved by a majority of
the team? Only some of them? I have read
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance but I see no note
about how QA team take actions and the "procedure" to follow and expect.

Thanks for the information and help :)