From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F621387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F6E3E09F9; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com (mail-ve0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9170E0932 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id jy13so3546145veb.2 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 06:30:44 -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=T9G4/szJduf2kp75m5WeSL1jUZDnQuLPIGemVscbCoM=; b=JaYTNNdwostGQXxeKVtecE/E92SSESyOFlemph6/1Si5AvHM6yV53DwfbWot3nIeVb P/U+cEOgrnHMP77nCdw2S/J/xJ2bA0bnCwe7vQk4fIATcVv+BRWQicOe9r6zzOhZM0k6 ELt5fiy9qfuDVZ9UG541p7oJkEDl7UO7tl0v80XCQ35WM0zOwzyWcUav2rQdcORRZPH1 woUa9jeuOBfvHd3JlP0mxHuE326NDglbqAb8LmLCrc11EG0FIHOFNveXIaoEimeuMKxy +JYiITZtNcGPdaE3wjkwFcJfgCkZgsJxS5YiYiDJb4O7KTUoJyjZumUtedhFdss7beTl PeyA== 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 10.58.22.38 with SMTP id a6mr58952vef.58.1396877444656; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 06:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.29.142 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:30:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140407143654.145d4252@gentoo.org> References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <201404061435.00789.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53414CD2.4030100@gentoo.org> <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> <534172D6.6040204@gentoo.org> <1396819347.2061.5.camel@belkin5> <20140407133657.0fc9f9b8@gentoo.org> <20140407143654.145d4252@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:30:44 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JJI3RF7Sghtaahd2th-tnW3Q7VM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 155a8902-2060-44af-8068-4d9ba8233a54 X-Archives-Hash: 5558c7b99f2778f29fc54cbe76d6762d On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:47 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >> I would recommend that QA consider some questions that at least seem >> to be poorly understood (perhaps the process should be on the wiki): >> 1. When should a QA member seek action regarding something in the >> tree? 2. Does a QA member need to seek approval for their actions, >> and when? 3. When seeking approval, how should a QA member do so? >> How long do they need to wait for a reply before taking action? >> 4. How should the sought action be clearly communicated to those >> whose approval is sought, and how should approval or disapproval be >> communicated? > > There are answered by GLEP 48[1] or by how we already operate: "how we already operate" isn't a documented practice. I wouldn't bring it up if there wasn't apparent confusion. > > 1. As stated in "[...] look out for the best interests of all > developers, as well as our users. [...] ensure developers have the > information they need, and that packages are maintained. [...] ensure > tree policies are respected [...]". So, if any individual in QA on their own feels that taking an action in the name of QA furthers these goals, they may do so? > > 2. No, "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of > established QA members must agree with the action. [...]". My question is whether they need to seek approval, and when. I can read the GLEP just fine. I'm not sure what you mean by, "No." Are you saying they don't need to seek approval before taking action? Honestly, this kind of ambiguity is exactly what I want us to avoid when we get into the operations of QA. It is better to say, "no, pre-approval of individual QA actions is not needed because..." or "no, pre-approval of individual actions IS needed because..." Short answers to complex questions lead to interpretation. I think it is an important thing to clarify. Are you suggesting a workflow where any individual in QA can take an action they feel is necessary, and then the rest of QA only comes into it if somebody notices and disagrees, at which point the action gets undone? Or is the workflow that when somebody wants to take an action they first run it past the team? > > 3. A mail to qa@gentoo.org and/or an agenda item, wait until a vote > or lead decision has been made; we already do things like this. Well, clearly nobody waited for a vote on this one. At least, I can find no record of a vote approving the mask on the new virtuals. If this is only done after a QA action is taken if there is disagreement, then we should clarify what happens in the meantime (does the mask/etc stay in place for a few weeks?). I think the importance of clarifying when individuals should act on their own becomes more important if any team discussion only comes after the fact. If team discussion happens before actions are taken then there is less risk of inconsistent actions, but of course more latency before action can be taken. > >> [...] A good practice is to clearly state a motion/proposal/etc, and >> then have everybody clearly say they approve or do not approve it. > > This is already done in meetings; however, note that this is impossible > when nobody is around at night hours in the weekend outside a meeting. The Trustees do this sort of thing all the time. Log a bug, document a proposal, and individuals leave their votes in comments. Generally it is done for things that are more routine and don't require discussion. It has been suggested for the Council but so far the need hasn't arisen. I think it is important to have a way to deal with issues outside of meetings for a team like QA which is much closer to the daily operations of Gentoo. For another example from the Trustees, the Foundation grants Infra an annual budget and when they need to make purchases they just log bugs and the Treasurer approves them and cuts checks without any need for all the Trustees to vote. If something bigger than a RAID drive failure comes up then they put in a funding request like anybody else. > Thanks, I appreciate your efforts to help us out but I believe we've > already beyond that step months ago; the QA team's operations are fine, > the problem lies elsewhere. Yet, I will try to mitigate it next time. The thing that bothers me about this particular case is that I've heard several on QA mention that they intended to express disagreement with zero_chaos's actions, but that their intent was never clearly stated as outright disapproval and was interpreted as just "be careful / think twice / etc" advice. It wasn't clear that their approval was needed before taking action, and their disapproval wasn't explicit either. I don't want to suggest that if QA spots a rootkit in a package that they need to wait for a monthly meeting to do something about it. Common sense needs to prevail. However, when the house isn't on fire it wouldn't hurt to have a somewhat orderly way to go about interventions. I don't think you need a perfect set of rules either. Any guideline is going to be subject to interpretation, and I'm not into crucifying people over that. The goal though is to push back the grey areas reasonably far, and then rely on good attitudes and common sense to get us through the rest. I really don't want to beat up on QA here. I think you guys are generally doing great work. I just think that there is probably a little room for improvement/transparency. Rich