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 19E421382C5 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05975E0A00; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 C83FAE09E7 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (dslb-088-073-063-205.088.073.pools.vodafone-ip.de [88.73.63.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EF02335C2A for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:33:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <23169.22344.839501.980448@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23171.27241.311990.19309@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ch=c3=ad-Thanh_Christopher_Nguy=e1=bb=85n?= Message-ID: <9626a44b-8202-dccd-c748-9d7170eac305@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 01:33:30 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.5.0 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 In-Reply-To: <23171.27241.311990.19309@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: a6debe88-cf07-4a21-a0a1-c62a9f0379ec X-Archives-Hash: ee5344b07ac54de4ad17c32e586ba2ec Ulrich Mueller schrieb: >> Council, QA and Comrel are effectively the governing bodies of >> Gentoo, enacting and/or enforcing project-wide policy on their own >> accord. The others that you mention have only direct power in a very >> limited area. > > At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the > team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification: > "The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping > the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and > pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct > action." > > The latter is meant in the sense of direct action to the tree (and > even then, overriding maintainers is not the default). The QA team > doesn't have the power to take any direct disciplinary action against > developers. Sorry for the long quote, I was unsure if I could cut out anything. I am not concerned about times when everyone is cooperating happily, and I think that is also not what williamh had in mind when he made the proposal. The concern is about times when disagreement gets so bad that the Council has to be called to resolve this. QA has the power to make new tree policies, and enforce them against maintainers (recent example was banning eblits I think). QA is in some ways exempt from rules that apply to normal developers, or can grant such an exception. The shortcuts from the last-riting process for removing packages come to mind. > Theoretically, in the case of continuing breakage caused by a dev, QA > could ask ComRel to have that dev's commit access suspended. I cannot > remember any case where such a measure was taken (correct me if I am > wrong). > > So, it appears that QA has teeth but need not use them. ;) One incident I recall where a dev was suspended (and then retired) was a python maintainer who caused stable to break several times. ComRel didn't exist back then. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn