Jon Portnoy wrote: >>>Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so >>>often & so hard before handling this particular incident. I don't think >>>it's so unreasonable to have backup plans for preserving Gentoo when >>>devrel cannot respond in a timely manner >> >>Come on, this is FUD. Devrel had had a plenty of time to make an action >>*and* to talk to infra in the recent case. They had decided *not* to do >>that - which means that they didn't consider it apropriate, IMHO. >> >>Or am I really missing something obvious? >> > > > My point is that when devrel breaks infra has to pick up the pieces, > thus it makes sense for them to have that angle covered.
I feel really confused. Have you read the logs of the recent affair? Devrel *hadn't* requested anything, infra made an action on their own and *didn't* revert it even after being told by devrel that no action was requested. Sure infra has to pick up the pieces, that's their job. If they don't like it and think that $someone is about to screw up something while devrel doesn't think so and devrel don't change their mind after a talk with infra, even then infra should have *no power* to suspend the dev in question. At least that's how I see the infra's role as I already stated several times on -core. Politics != system administration. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
