On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mark Loeser wrote: > > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages, > >> and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions in > >> the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else. > > > > I think it really depends on the situation, but in general I disagree > > that something should be left in a state that the QA team finds > > questionable/broken. It should be a very rare occurence that this comes > > up, since we don't really want to override what the maintainer says, but > > I think the QA team should have this right in extreme circumstances. > > So if QA thinks one way is right, and the package maintainer thinks > another way is right, you say QA always trumps? > > I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty > until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_ > situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question) > resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as > security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage.
The devs asked for a council. A council was elected. The council decided that QA trumps devs. If anybody has a problem with that they are free to object at the next council meeting. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- [email protected] mailing list
