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 F3CC71387FD for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:51:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05D56E0AD8; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:51:29 +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 657BBE0AD7 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:51:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id jy13so4154401veb.2 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 06:51:27 -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=qVvIMLipFE5wlwp6m+Dk3UCfam+1O+nBANre8JlJjxY=; b=XgKdfEA50YdmqKgyMULcpCuksyoAp7TeVU3xlz+5Ryn0yoyG3bO+kaK3iqyn0YNkDW RdhOoqpvI0df/Hb/s89wCWZEy8grFbRMgR9V0zIrl22/ZuaQJPLfuK+r82GpQwUkiibo z60yYTiHf3hVuqYOsvnCo6j9XoA46VMInOs00XmxQUftdYrqGFMmg9pqfzmJ5PISFdC4 G/gY/iDnJyd7nRWi3z4a1fCkFQdKZ/E5Mt/rsmPEud63+lwVSbEuG8leagmfl0eZKAC9 hawfyud4k+7qGydRivt81vXeeOuarTi4vExZlsvB8Kkw12cyUoy6PiUZ1m/1pdYmU4N9 P6Uw== 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 10.220.133.80 with SMTP id e16mr18113116vct.13.1396187487500; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 06:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.29.142 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 06:51:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5337F95A.2060808@gentoo.org> References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <5336D386.6080609@opensource.dyc.edu> <20140329143634.GA31923@laptop.home> <201403300012.55229.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140330003709.GA733@laptop.home> <20140330022034.GA1151@laptop.home> <5337F95A.2060808@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:51:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: U3CZ6FWTB9y7_oW8oDfcpAYbeyw 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: d968adb8-8ae0-4c77-9bb3-9745fb233711 X-Archives-Hash: 469bf0203589b05cbf3e660557da0307 On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > While implementing a new policy may not be the right approach (or so I'm > hearing from the community), I can bring forward at least 3 examples of > significant changes that were not discussed. I don't think I would have > difficulty convincing people of this fact. If we do not enact policy then > how is this problem addressed? I should clarify my meaning. I don't think we need to enact a specific virtual/profile/etc policy because I think it should ALREADY be treated as policy. At most we should be clarifying that we already consider it policy. To the extent that we create new policy it should be much more open-ended, like "consult the list when making major design changes that impact many packages/users" or something like that. However, either creating/clarifying policy, or pointing out that something already is policy will not do anything if people don't follow it. I also was not suggesting that we should not enforce policy - only that doing so is tragic. I do think that allowing productive developers to just ignore the rules is more harmful than stepping in. I will make the general statement that if people have a problem with QA outright defiance is something that should almost certainly lead to a ban of some kind. There are many ways to handle perceived abuse of QA power, and that is probably the worst possible. No need to just sit on your hands until the next council meeting - complain privately to council, or publicly to council, or go to comrel (who will probably just end up arbitrating or handing off to council) but don't unilaterally get into a revert war with QA! When you do, you immediately change priority #1 from fixing the situation to fixing you. Don't just assume that QA won't back down or the Council won't step in after just a bit of reasoning. On the other hand, these are people issues, and when a need for enforcement comes up somebody should at least take the time to chat with the individual concerned and try to explain/connect/etc, and get the full story before taking action. They shouldn't just get an email saying "the Council just met and FYI your commit access is revoked for two weeks, have a nice day." Somebody should be responsible to reach out to them and be a contact through the experience. Some may ragequit and be lost all the same, but really the goal is to try to teach a lesson and some kind of mentoring will help with that, and perhaps give the affected individual someplace to vent the next time a problem comes up. Rich