On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:09:29PM -0500, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless > > > comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant > > > future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on > > > situations where the screwup was too weird to be documented previously. > > > > This is very much a case-by-case thing. I still feel the debate should > > be better answered outside of conflicting qa members. > > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.
I've yet to read the rest of this subthread this morning, but while its fresh in my mind I would also like to see less of a requirement from the council. They are there purely for technical direction and not for a teams beck and call. Regardless, I can see your point - although I would still prefer to see a little more public discussion when the QA team are unable to satisfactorily come to an answer between themselves and the maintainer in question. -- Role: Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515
pgpLXBkh7cAFg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
