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

[Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>]

El lun, 07-04-2014 a las 14:36 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:47 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > This is also already present in GLEP 48[1]:
> > >
> > >     In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> > >     established QA members must agree with the action. Some
> > > examples of disagreements are whether the perceived problem
> > > violates the policy or whether the solution makes the situation
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > We know what to do; however, we can't do it if we're not addressed.
> > 
> > So, I already sent this suggestion to qa@ last week, but:
> > 
> > I would recommend that QA consider some questions that at least seem
> > to be poorly understood (perhaps the process should be on the wiki):
> > 1.  When should a QA member seek action regarding something in the
> > tree? 2.  Does a QA member need to seek approval for their actions,
> > and when? 3.  When seeking approval, how should a QA member do so?
> > How long do they need to wait for a reply before taking action?
> > 4.  How should the sought action be clearly communicated to those
> > whose approval is sought, and how should approval or disapproval be
> > communicated?
> 
> There are answered by GLEP 48[1] or by how we already operate:
> 
> 1.  As stated in "[...] look out for the best interests of all
> developers, as well as our users. [...] ensure developers have the
> information they need, and that packages are maintained. [...] ensure
> tree policies are respected [...]".
> 
> 2. No, "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> established QA members must agree with the action. [...]".
> 
> 3. A mail to qa@gentoo.org and/or an agenda item, wait until a vote
> or lead decision has been made; we already do things like this.
> 
> 4. For qa@gentoo.org they can directly see the result; as for the
> meeting, summarizing mails and summaries are published after meeting.
> 
> These have been well understood for a while now; even from before the
> first QA meeting, which took place on 29 January 2014[2].
> 
> [1]: "GLEP 48"
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48
> 
> [2]: "QA Meeting Summaries"
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries
> 
> > [...] A good practice is to clearly state a motion/proposal/etc, and
> > then have everybody clearly say they approve or do not approve it.
> 
> This is already done in meetings; however, note that this is impossible
> when nobody is around at night hours in the weekend outside a meeting.
> 
> > [...]
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate your efforts to help us out but I believe we've
> already beyond that step months ago; the QA team's operations are fine,
> the problem lies elsewhere. Yet, I will try to mitigate it next time.
> 

Thanks for the clarification (also Rich questions were mostly the same I
was wondering about :D)