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 E44901387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37479E0A70; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67223E09EC for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([94.226.55.127]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id n0dY1n00H2khLEN010dYka; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:37:32 +0200 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:36:54 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 Message-ID: <20140407143654.145d4252@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 82b0dcca-b2b0-4508-aa3a-df36858cf361 X-Archives-Hash: e1041e61c2826c4f5cefe1f1afa56d9a 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. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D