On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:22:07 -0700 Denis Dupeyron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, William Hubbs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This is nothing new; the qa team has requested that commit rights be > > suspended before. I am just proposing that we actually add the > > parts of the old patch to the glep that spell out when and how this > > can happen. > > > > Thoughts? > > Yes, thoughts, absolutely. Asking for QA to be at the same time judge, > party and executioner. Need I say more? That is under the assumption that such suspension is permanent as well as that QA is the only judge. However, most mentioned suspensions there are temporary and QA needs to bring forward reasoning as to why QA has requested the temporary suspension; the final judge here is the Gentoo Council just like with ComRel's suspensions. QA really is just a party here and has nearly no final power when it comes to judging or execution; the goal here is to deal with the rather unusual bigger breakages, but if this doesn't go through QA can just forward the request to ComRel and have them consider and do it. This patch just came up by a hypothetical discussion where QA was given the impression that QA has the power to request this; some of the Council meetings back in history seem to approve this patch, others do not. It's a rather odd history, and hence we set things straight here. It is more of a "Do we want QA to delegate this through ComRel or not?". -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
