On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:12:52PM -0500, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; "the > > established QA members" ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree > > ( or large subset thereof ) without even necessarily talking to the > > affected developers. > > > > While you may not think that soliciting comments is useful ( and in some > > limited cases I would agree with you ) giving people the opportunity to > > comment also means you just covered your ass, in terms of people going > > "where the hell did that come from?" > > We don't plan on going around and making changes without discussing > issues with the maintainers. We put this in so that if the maintainer > is unwilling to work with us for some reason, that we are able to come > up with what we believe to be the best fix. As I said earlier in the > document, we plan to work as much with maintainers as possible, but > sometimes that may prove to be impossible.
In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view. For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump maintainer, then who picks the QA staff? If anyone can become QA staff, then this is questionable in itself. is QA becoming another council with a sole purpose? If so I'd like to see an election again. At the end of the day the pack have to have faith in the team doing the work, and disagreements are obviously contrary to that. -- 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
pgpgTcm5SZaCd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
