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 5B9C81381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:29:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EAB0E09DA; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42BAE09CD for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.174.127.233] (unknown [85.76.55.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 390D333FD5E for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 17:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536FB32C.6000206@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 20:28:12 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 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> In-Reply-To: <20140511161420.41fce9f7@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 26b0c4de-4114-411e-a50c-b8d97474c919 X-Archives-Hash: e23570dcba13af4f76e750cf07f06ea9 On 11/05/14 17:14, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:43:04 +0000 > hasufell wrote: > >> Exactly, they should rather be the guys who jump in discussions that >> affect tree consistency etc. and help with general inquiries. > If only the community would expect and know us to be those guys. > > Tried to help with a general inquiry today where QA team was CC-ed ... > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509962#c3 > > ... where I ... > > 1) hold on to policy by quoting it, which QA is asked to do; > 2) give Samuli the benefit of doubt, as to let him talk first; > 3) contact multiple persons from the arch teams to be fully aware, > answers ranging from "Samuli can do that" [a personal exception?] > to "That's rude" [the opposite of that exception?]; so, confusing; > 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel; > 5) ... > > ... but in response I get ... what do you expect, if every second day you end up protecting your work from the qa@ team's newer developers, including yourself, never admitting any wrong doings, never receiving an proper apology for the wasted time, slapping QA tag on it in total, you can count the wasted time in days, if not soon in weeks, not minutes, so i feel the time for "extra" politeness has passed, already gave it a go, didn't get the expected results - Samuli