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 368151381FA for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BB2CE0BD2; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8054E0BC3 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 15:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ij19so6344383vcb.14 for ; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:07:46 -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=FJvZ0jq4WrVErePibUe3Z9yBrAfQ8h62lLS9Y0I8UiQ=; b=E7eU2xvVfLk06d+YleboPif4a0gL1P6ctrY/QYSKFjm3DUNQoeZcvWQoyYwJAXLTNY CeKNRpKkFVDPcqeaj0bRZXxP/d7mJE93kcxO7r1zGiC8Vpy0wUvrcc9Ez/Rw1vaswrK2 ogS0njAIyl7aeuZLVrpLg9azZVIyYkjQW2AJb3NfcT9sg4YgHHaKTNdKQmq9VmTdbyX9 YGMZEP+4uOmhNTfEXoIxuTWZF140i0gUZJitUH11eWM3QvRihP+U56wpqB87avAAtGkl kcwXI8WTjAbaPf8F75fqSThjfPgpSeE8V11RPaKx355HtUIUlba1yuVXnzDtWO7gqTXW 3qLA== 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 10.221.42.135 with SMTP id ty7mr14724618vcb.14.1400252866819; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140516163658.435313d0@gentoo.org> References: <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> <2731252.LOkG5ql5OK@localhost> <536FE7C4.2090403@gentoo.org> <537481BE.1070609@gentoo.org> <5374A32B.9000805@gentoo.org> <53760525.9090300@gentoo.org> <20140516163658.435313d0@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 11:07:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BhUA5Wh1AqP9OgWOJU_NUdGA6a8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] OT - Tinderbox question From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2fba4c5a-20f9-4bff-bf9e-d7581caaa387 X-Archives-Hash: de1b53e08dbed5e9aad8c1f540ba58cf On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:51:54 -0400 > Rich Freeman 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