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 6AB4E1387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72807E0B2C; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4570E0A93 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([94.226.55.127]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id n3XJ1n00p2khLEN013XKLw; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:31:19 +0200 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 17:30:41 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ssuominen@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 Message-ID: <20140407173041.01786a25@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <5342BBBE.1090607@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> <5342BBBE.1090607@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: 061a701b-2fbd-4f52-998c-e0ea95582c68 X-Archives-Hash: 8013183ce4d56184289b777c70464bac On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:52:46 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 07/04/14 14:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > > 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? > > Direct action? When there is something visibly broken[1], or a policy > has been violated > > [1] The definition of broken doesn't apply to controversial design > models, for which... > > ...indirect action can be taken, like putting it on council's next > agenda Outside of the context of the case; what is suggested here conflicts with what GLEP 48[1] states, "In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting.", furthermore, bringing everything straight to the Gentoo Council like this neglects the QA team's purpose. [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48 > > 2. Does a QA member need to seek approval for their actions, and > > when? > > When he wants to change something despite no policies being violated, > nor anything being actually broken[1] > > [1] See above. Who would decide how over whether it is a violation or brokenness? > > 3. When seeking approval, how should a QA member do so? How long > > do they need to wait for a reply before taking action? > > For long as it takes to get everyone available for a majority vote > and/or putting > it on council's agenda and waiting until the vote has been done in > their side. This is a long sentence, can you clarify it by splitting it up to avoid misinterpretation? In particular, if I have read it right, why should Gentoo Council and Gentoo QA be contacted at the same time when Gentoo QA is yet to decide on the matter? We already do wait as such. > > What we also don't want is a situation where one person in QA does > > something. Then somebody else objects and undoes it pending a vote. > > Then the vote comes in and it gets reverted again. Then the > > impacted developer appeals to council or the problem gets fixed and > > then the mask/etc gets dropped. At that point all our users > > ragequit because they just had a package upgraded three times and > > downgrated twice. > > That's why individual QA members, or even two of them, as some people > team up in a nasty way, shouldn't have too much powers to begin with. In this case, it's a temporary mask that doesn't stop your work at all; but granted, we shouldn't be able to go too far, but then where should the line be drawn (on our bikes)? > For anything even slightly controversial, they should always seek for > a majority vote, and that vote should result in a clear action, like > written down policy/guideline. When is something controversial (about my bike)? > I'm not sure where to draw the line between requiring a majority QA > vote, or when to push it to council. First do the former, then do the latter; no need to draw a line. :) > Problem with just having a majority QA vote, is that the voting > happens in a unscheduled (or very late scheduled) meeting at IRC, and > there isn't prior discussion on the ML where objections could be > raised by non-members. The next meeting usually gets announced by mail (creffett does so, but I'm not sure if he is around at the moment), as well as is listed on the QA agenda page as well as is listed in the Gentoo QA topic. When? Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 1800 UTC Where? #gentoo-qa What? https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda Objections can be send to us, even after the meeting, if you want to; consider that when things are said, they're not necessarily final. > Let's not make this a dictatorship. :-/ Let's not make this a (bike shedding) contest. :-\ -- 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