From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E551381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E1CAE096B; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from michel.telenet-ops.be (michel.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.88]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84713E0969 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org ([94.226.55.127]) by michel.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id 0hJf1o00f2khLEN06hJfgs; Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:41 +0200 Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:18:27 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: jer@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 Message-ID: <20140511191827.32abfe0e@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140511185146.36e09a2d@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org> <20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org> <536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org> <536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org> <536D1C28.1010504@gentoo.org> <20140509203727.1d6a3e69@gentoo.org> <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> <536E2CE8.1070807@gentoo.org> <20140511161420.41fce9f7@gentoo.org> <20140511185146.36e09a2d@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/VTR8ZN5vavILvUV0fZMMj5Z"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 776ca4d7-e4d4-4796-85da-306e457b7390 X-Archives-Hash: f98bad9030d5d61f6db4566b01cc444c --Sig_/VTR8ZN5vavILvUV0fZMMj5Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 11 May 2014 18:51:46 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:14:20 +0200 > Tom Wijsman wrote: >=20 > > 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel; >=20 > What does that mean? See point (4) in the redacted feedback below. > Does it ever happen to you that you think "choosing to bitch" is the > right solution? See point (4) in your specific quote above. > And what is "escalating to ComRel"? It sounds painfully like any > ComRel (re)solution would result in people getting booted from the > project or severely restricted in volunteering their work, if not > simply unwilling to do so under technically imposed restrictions > (from QA or the Council). Exactly, and such escalations happen too often; to both ComRel and QA, to some extent this even happens to the Gentoo Council too. > > ... but in response I get ... >=20 > [lots of negative feedback] >=20 > > 14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)". > >=20 > > Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and > > work? >=20 > Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the > right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and > from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps > pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way. Can you also consider that people are pushing QA too hard, or rubbing the QA team the wrong way? Action, reaction; there are two sides to it. > There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with > volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed, Did someone state there to be such hierarchy? > even when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best > solution doesn't immediately present itself. What does that mean? What is non obvious? Why a solution? > And when you decide to force issues through policies, you find that > you don't actually have the resources to do that, What is this even about? Has something been forced? Which resources? > unless you are prepared to drive out the volunteers you expected to > start "fixing" things. Are matters of "policy" the carrot or the > stick? Given that you haven't looked into the case, I'm not sure why you can claim such statements; in matters like these, the "policy" is the clue. --=20 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 --Sig_/VTR8ZN5vavILvUV0fZMMj5Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTb7DjAAoJEPWZc8roOL/Q5G8H/2ie3iljDDDmo+41q73yNmYr l//54zS/JgtA1dpZ9s70l0TQ8q/Klq3SFRI3c8lz8yRDMQj7WX3NaA42lEelpxt7 nd2DOPWal54rR7eEwOpOya3gVU+8KeLC8MolhZ+tqEniPxQ6dfTLjEi6/huL16vF Pb3t3KsnkjunojQudYEUg9yBJ71TR2sEyTCvHGo4oSV098A37u0IzDAd3vkD5KHz 21qi10O+L8R5r1wYR4UH3FOGbg2q4jh60LysguAfxkHId4oV5WTf6evSF5uTtOsf SVfc2G8Etgo4t6Hc3YcjfhA3fSEHSiCSMNWgR+JiZw1H8QPqkE6beuh4sa0Y9bY= =Nqdi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/VTR8ZN5vavILvUV0fZMMj5Z--