[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --]

In two weeks from now, the council will again have its regular monthly 
meeting. Now is the time to raise and prepare items that the council should 
put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.

Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to repeat 
your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously suggested one (since 
the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2013-11-05.

Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.

Best, 
Andreas

-- 
Dr. Andreas K. Huettel
Institute for Experimental and Applied Physics
University of Regensburg
D-93040 Regensburg
Germany

tel. +49 151 241 67748 (mobile)
e-mail andreas.huettel@ur.de
http://www.akhuettel.de/
http://www.physik.uni-r.de/forschung/huettel/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to repeat
> your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously suggested one (since
> the last meeting).
>

Removing last keyworded package version for a minor arch:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3110

Rich

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Michael Palimaka]

On 30/10/2013 00:22, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> In two weeks from now, the council will again have its regular monthly
> meeting. Now is the time to raise and prepare items that the council should
> put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
>
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to repeat
> your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously suggested one (since
> the last meeting).
>
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2013-11-05.
>
> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>

Hi,

I propose that the Council disband the current QA team, and call for 
interested developers to form a new one in its place.

In its current state, the QA project (excluding subprojects) is 
moribund, and all attempts to address the problem with the team directly 
have failed.

The team is predominately inactive - of the eight listed members, only 
half have any bugzilla activity at all within the last six months. Of 
those four members, after a cursory examination of bugzilla, I was only 
able to locate one that has made more than one action clearly as part of 
the QA team within the last six months.

There is no way for new members to join the team. Requests for 
membership posted to the mailing list are ignored[1], and direct mails 
apparently go unanswered.

The mailing list is dead - the only post in the last two years is a ping 
about trying to join the team. Only half of the team are in their IRC 
channel, and most of the few queries raised there are ignored.

The email alias is private, so it's not clear who will be receiving any 
queries via email or bugmail.

In its current state, not only is QA achieving few of its project goals, 
but it's actually harmful in that sought advice and mediation never 
actually comes.

Best regards,
Michael

[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.qa/102

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/01/2013 12:25 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 30/10/2013 00:22, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> In two weeks from now, the council will again have its regular monthly
>> meeting. Now is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
>> should
>> put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
>>
>> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
>> repeat
>> your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously suggested one
>> (since
>> the last meeting).
>>
>> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2013-11-05.
>>
>> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I propose that the Council disband the current QA team, and call for
> interested developers to form a new one in its place.
> 
> In its current state, the QA project (excluding subprojects) is
> moribund, and all attempts to address the problem with the team directly
> have failed.
> 
> The team is predominately inactive - of the eight listed members, only
> half have any bugzilla activity at all within the last six months. Of
> those four members, after a cursory examination of bugzilla, I was only
> able to locate one that has made more than one action clearly as part of
> the QA team within the last six months.
> 
> There is no way for new members to join the team. Requests for
> membership posted to the mailing list are ignored[1], and direct mails
> apparently go unanswered.
> 
> The mailing list is dead - the only post in the last two years is a ping
> about trying to join the team. Only half of the team are in their IRC
> channel, and most of the few queries raised there are ignored.
> 
> The email alias is private, so it's not clear who will be receiving any
> queries via email or bugmail.
> 
> In its current state, not only is QA achieving few of its project goals,
> but it's actually harmful in that sought advice and mediation never
> actually comes.
> 
> Best regards,
> Michael
> 
> [1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.qa/102
> 
> 
> 
> 
I know this isn't officially required but, SECONDED.  And a big thanks
to Kensington for standing up and saying something.  You are not alone.

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=1tsf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

On 11/1/13 1:27 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> I propose that the Council disband the current QA team, and call for
>> interested developers to form a new one in its place.
> 
>> In its current state, the QA project (excluding subprojects) is
>> moribund, and all attempts to address the problem with the team directly
>> have failed.
> 
> I know this isn't officially required but, SECONDED.  And a big thanks
> to Kensington for standing up and saying something.  You are not alone.

+1

I'd advise for extra care with Council doing things like that. I think I
see the situation we're in, and I think some action is warranted. When
we get to specifics though, some questions arise:

a) Who would be the lead of that new QA project?

b) Given special role of QA, how to address having some bar on who can
and who can't be a member of QA team at given moment? Or should there be
some "levels" like in security team, indicating what actions can and
can't be done on behalf of the QA team?

c) Any comments on <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html>?
Especially these:

- "The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or public
election among the members of the team."

- "The QA team lead must approve developers who would like to join the
project."

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:24 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd advise for extra care with Council doing things like that.

Agree.  Would love to see the QA team chime in here.  Would also love
to hear concrete proposals.

>
> a) Who would be the lead of that new QA project?

I think getting the concepts right is more important than picking the
lead, but I'm sure there will be a lead so if there is interest
somebody will need to step up.  That said, I would prefer to see the
Council decide on direction and put out a call for volunteers - some
might be reluctant to step up and create a stir if the status quo is
maintained.

>
> b) Given special role of QA, how to address having some bar on who can
> and who can't be a member of QA team at given moment? Or should there be
> some "levels" like in security team, indicating what actions can and
> can't be done on behalf of the QA team?

Not sure we could ever codify anything like this.  Instead I'd prefer
accountability - see below.

>
> c) Any comments on <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html>?
> Especially these:
>
> - "The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or public
> election among the members of the team."

Honestly, I'd suggest that the QA lead be appointed by the Council
following election.  I'd also suggest that the existing QA team
collectively issue a recommendation for that position.  The Council
would not be required to go with that recommendation, but it would be
strongly encouraged that they do so.  In this way the QA team has a
clear mandate, and is accountable.

>
> - "The QA team lead must approve developers who would like to join the
> project."

I think this should remain in place.  With the lead being accountable
for the actions of the team, they should have the authority to manage
the team.  The lead could also delegate authority in the role as
appropriate - perhaps a small team would be able to take action on QA
issues, and a larger team could perform QA-like activities that are
less authoritative such as testing, tinderboxes, or other volunteer
activities.  I think we need to get beyond the concept of QA being
somebody carrying a club - in this way even non-devs could
participate.  That said, having a mandate from the elected Council
would actually increase the authority of the QA team.

As with Devrel/etc issues could be appealed to Council, who would be
expected to support the QA lead they appointed unless things got out
of hand.

A system like this creates accountability all around, with the
developer community holding the final say in the election of the
Council.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:24 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'd advise for extra care with Council doing things like that.

> Agree.  Would love to see the QA team chime in here.  Would also love
> to hear concrete proposals.

Diego, as QA team lead can you comment on this, please?

>> c) Any comments on <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html>?
>> Especially these:
>>
>> - "The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or
>> public election among the members of the team."
>>
>> - "The QA team lead must approve developers who would like to join
>> the project."

I think that the QA team should be given a chance to resolve the issue
within the framework of GLEP 48. An election of the team lead is
overdue, and also there appears to be some devs who have applied for
joining the team but haven't been approved. (AFAICS, I've been the
last member being admitted, and that was in 2011.) Also it would be
good if current team members made some statement if they're still
interested.

If neither electing a team lead nor admitting new members will work
out, then it means that there's a deadlock and some external action
must be taken to break it. However, the council appointing a project
lead would be against the principles of both GLEP 48 and (more
important) GLEP 39. So maybe the council should rather admit new
members to the team.

Could everyone who is interested in joining the QA team repeat their
application here, so we can get a complete list?

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I think that the QA team should be given a chance to resolve the issue
> within the framework of GLEP 48.

++

> However, the council appointing a project
> lead would be against the principles of both GLEP 48

Agree.

> and (more
> important) GLEP 39.

In what way?  I don't think GLEP 39 was really intended to cover
"special" projects - in fact the whole point of it is that projects
aren't special.  Per GLEP 39 I could start my own "Quality" project if
I wanted to, as well as my own "Developer Discipline" project too.
That would of course be silly.  Competing projects make sense on
technical initiatives, but not on administrative ones.

In any case, GLEP 48 already overrides GLEP 39 insofar as team
composition goes, so the precedent has already been set for the
Council making these sorts of decisions.

> So maybe the council should rather admit new
> members to the team.

Not sure how that is any better than just confirming a lead.  Are you
suggesting that we can't have a say in who the lead is, but we can
appoint any number of sock-puppets to the team?

I really don't want to take action without hearing from the current
team (assuming they comment).  However, I don't see any reason that we
shouldn't take action if there is a good reason to do so.  This isn't
Wikipedia - we don't need to cite the right combination of policies to
get something done...

Rich

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-11-12

[Michael Palimaka]

On 2/11/2013 21:06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I think that the QA team should be given a chance to resolve the issue
> within the framework of GLEP 48.
I agree, and hope that the issue being raised here is the catalyst for 
resolution without intervention. Of course, I would not have raised the 
issue here in the first place if I did not feel that it could be 
resolved internally. I understand that I am not the only one to have 
such frustrations, so I hope others chime in with their experiences.

> If neither electing a team lead nor admitting new members will work
> out, then it means that there's a deadlock and some external action
> must be taken to break it. However, the council appointing a project
> lead would be against the principles of both GLEP 48 and (more
> important) GLEP 39. So maybe the council should rather admit new
> members to the team.
I agree. If the Council accepts the agenda item and decides to take 
action, I suggest that they temporarily assume the function of team lead 
as specified in GLEP 48. After calling for new members and approving 
those suitably qualified, a new lead can be elected from the 
newly-formed team.