From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879ED1387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 20:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDEBBE0ABF; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 20:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C31AE0AAA for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 20:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (132.Red-2-137-63.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.63.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76F6533FC21 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 20:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1396900864.2061.23.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:01:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140407143654.145d4252@gentoo.org> References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <201404061435.00789.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53414CD2.4030100@gentoo.org> <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> <534172D6.6040204@gentoo.org> <1396819347.2061.5.camel@belkin5> <20140407133657.0fc9f9b8@gentoo.org> <20140407143654.145d4252@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7cb04b5c-0892-4541-b8c6-3bf07d05ea21 X-Archives-Hash: bcb4bd16051dd9b475c9b656b4052e50 El lun, 07-04-2014 a las 14:36 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:47 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Tom Wijsman 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)