On 20.6.2013 6.53, 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).
> 

GLEP 48 as it currently stands on [1] delegates suspensions to devrel.

> 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.
> 
> 

I agree with you that it's not Devrel's job to be in the code quality
business (which I have also pointed internally).

Regards,
Petteri

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html

-- 
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?