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 904F81381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F369E09FA; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7443E09F9 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id lh14so3239971vcb.5 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=sbQJn19PWZe01t63jZFfxEszRjz90bfzKa8QWbb7stc=; b=tlaLYdOialXHxDK+7RBpqkTUALoGcU9V+lCTTZrw8vHnOQHW0pVLNFTQ4Dn0MgrIYD GQOM5wmHEmXnGoJt7OzcQWi823HHxKKpTckkDqNovbUlFnrjBMjPqdoq4URKEFdz2Gsa avPHDbZYbzNVvAezkp+NApK6PGs6OoqgXIHGsWtXsEAcKCgoM1wlxNaNnVmrA49EBOvZ o39AqVk5hamTSSzpPlhGUKHckJnGo8zRkkk8I7HZUHCEejaPATCnL06IkEw5oX21rOL/ DsYfdu6E7fCK94XaBePKbyThOiv4S/yWH6i1sSRQMBQsJDm8zzGe0O7Egs9uZ4XMaIcC n/Bg== 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 X-Received: by 10.52.12.36 with SMTP id v4mr16061715vdb.20.1399831595013; Sun, 11 May 2014 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.53.201 with HTTP; Sun, 11 May 2014 11:06:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140511161420.41fce9f7@gentoo.org> 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> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 14:06:34 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GkQAEzO6ejqAU4Jws_56VREeSY0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 330268fb-304a-43a9-ba44-65c57cf02476 X-Archives-Hash: 67ea5d7eae86dbffd782df5fac4fd481 On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > 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; Honestly, vague accusations don't serve much purpose here. Either keep details private to protect identities if you want to talk about something in general, or just come out and say what you're concerned with so that we can talk about it in specific. Naming names but not the details is basically the worst of both worlds... I don't know the details of what exactly Samuli stabilized, but speaking only for myself my understanding of amd64 arch team policy is that in general we're fine with developers stabilizing their own packages as long as they actually test them on a stable amd64 system and otherwise follow all the policies for the stable branch (no major bugs, ~arch for 30 days, etc). Rumor has it that the package that was stabilized wasn't one he maintained, and that the maintainer wasn't given an opportunity to chime in. That isn't something anybody should be doing (arch team or not). If somebody wants to stabilize something they don't maintain but the maintainer doesn't object, I don't see a big problem with it as long as it is tested/etc. The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been very territorial about its role, perhaps because the arch is so ubiquitous. I don't really see a need for personal exceptions. That is just my two cents and understanding of what the amd64 arch team generally does, speaking as somebody who has been on the team in come capacity for the better part of a decade. We haven't really been super-organized as a project in recent years, so I'm not sure anybody can really speak for the team as a whole. If we had annual lead elections then we'd be in a better place to dictate policy. Honestly, concern about devs messing with stable keywords should probably just be brought to the attention of arch teams and left at that. QA is everybody's business, and this seems like QA, but in this sort of case the arch teams are in a better position to decide if there is a problem. Disclaimer - again I don't know the particulars of what happened, so to the extent that I'm only hearing part of the story (which is rather likely), take what applies and ignore the rest. And again, all of the above is just my personal two cents. Rich