Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:51:54 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I suspect the intent of their vote was that QA members could take
>> action individually in the name of QA. [...]
>
> You can read the meeting agenda ...
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Agenda
>
> ..., which shows the intent of the vote; it originates from ...
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3509
>
> ..., which was brought up by Samuli.
>

I understand that. My point is just that when members of QA want to
speak for QA, they should say so.

If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain with the commit comment
"update to newer EAPI" then I'm free to revert it if I consider the
change inappropriate (though obviously all devs should use discretion
when reverting anything).  If tomwij modifies an ebuild I maintain
with the commit comment "QA Change: update to newer EAPI" then I'm not
free to revert the change without working with him, QA, or the
Council, whether I think my previous ebuild violated policy or not.

Likewise, if tomwij comments on a bug, "I don't think a tinderbox is
worth QA's time" then it should be taken as personal opinion.  If he
comments, "QA has reviewed this request and feels it is not worth
pursing at this time" then that should be taken as the voice of QA
until demonstrated otherwise.

I occasionally post in bugs on behalf of the Council, and less
recently the Trustees.  When I do so I'm careful to state that my
comment is on their behalf, and as a result people take the
Council/Trustees seriously.  QA is intended to be operating closer to
the day-to-day fray and thus it can't be quite as deliberate in its
actions, but it is still helpful when QA members make it clear when
they're wearing their QA hats.

Rich