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 A51141381F3 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:24:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B69AE0A82; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38548E098A; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:24:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.95] (dynamic-adsl-84-220-80-211.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.80.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C18933E5E8; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:24:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51C2BC40.6040500@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:24:32 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGllZ28gRWxpbyBQZXR0ZW7Dsg==?= CC: "gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org" , gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Gentoo Developer Relations Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Temporary DevRel actions for CoC violations References: <51C1EBF5.3080707@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 3e2b7357-f575-49d5-a430-e73ea2be2366 X-Archives-Hash: 1c967d57015fa2f13fe69ca1d6124061 On 06/20/2013 05:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Does this mean the QA lead finally gets to suspend people who are > patently not suited for developing a stable distribution without > asking devrel? Because last time we got into the same judge, jury, > and executioner argument, which I guess was just sent for the gallows > (pun intended). I'm not against that, but I prefer setting some fast track involving at most 3 people and some procedure also for it. E.g. : you can ask for 6h suspension on direct request and by contacting a single devrel person to get an 1week suspension within 2 days. > Mind, it's not like I disagree with at least one of the actions that > you took recently, but given your surge approach I would like to > point out that is not your task judging code quality, and yes that > does make me uncomfortable, that you want to pick up the full power > at once, and not collaborate with whom should have been involved in > the process. As said, this whole thing is just an interim solution till fast-path procedures get deployed. lu