From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36DA8138334 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4C89E08DD; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C64FE0880 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3575342144; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:34:15 +0000 (UTC) From: =?UTF-8?q?Micha=C5=82=20G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: qa@gentoo.org, =?UTF-8?q?Micha=C5=82=20G=C3=B3rny?= Subject: [gentoo-project] [PATCH v2] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:34:10 +0200 Message-Id: <20190423173410.8531-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.21.0 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: fc15b773-e364-43f0-b5aa-61767d89c7ac X-Archives-Hash: 20aa5ce4fe2305d7569f68d9b77d4485 Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind of disciplinary actions QA can issue, and in what circumstances they can be exercised. According to the old wording, QA could request 're-evaluating commit rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of confusion more than once. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely serves as a body executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows. Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo, which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned in actions having social consequences rather than technical. Secondly, it clearly defines the possible disciplinary actions as either temporary commit access ban, or (in case of repeated offenses) permanent removal of commit access. Thirdly, it removes the unnecessary involvement of ComRel in temporary bans, QA violations being outside of their scope of interest. Each case of QA violations is analyzed by QA team individually, and QA team exercises disciplinary actions independently. At the same time, appeal path via Council is left provided. ComRel stays the body deciding for permanent ban and/or retirement, in case of repeated offense. Signed-off-by: Michał Górny --- glep-0048.rst | 15 ++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Changes from v1: - QA issues only short-term bans independently, while ComRel handles requests for permanent commit access removal diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst index f9773c0..6b5d031 100644 --- a/glep-0048.rst +++ b/glep-0048.rst @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Type: Standards Track Status: Final Version: 2 Created: 2006-04-24 -Last-Modified: 2014-01-25 -Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08 +Last-Modified: 2018-04-23 +Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2018-04-12 Content-Type: text/x-rst --- @@ -76,9 +76,14 @@ tree policies are respected. made by the council. * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not change the fact that it is still a QA violation. -* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team - may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. - Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel. +* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that + negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers + or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation + of developer's commit access (ban). In case of repeated offenses, the QA + team may request that ComRel re-evaluates the commit access. All + the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated + by the QA team for each case individually. The disciplinary decisions made + by the QA team are subject to appeal via the council. * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic -- 2.21.0