On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Patrick Lauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 10:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to > suspend > >>> people > >>> > >>> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable; > >> > >> Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm > >> still on the fence regarding whether we really need to make this > >> change at all, but things like access suspensions and other > >> administrative/disciplinary procedures should be documented. I think > >> whether this is a matter of public record or not is open to debate, > >> but I don't like the fact that we can really say for sure when/if this > >> has actually happened. > > > > > > Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be able > > to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends badly. I > > suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and the number > > of cases where it was the right thing to do is precisely 0. > > I've been in positions where such powers were not granted, it's worse. > > All you can do is send strongly-worded letters and undo, then wait for > the same thing to be tried again, while telling damagement that this > situation is not good. > > > > > It was always a case of ill-advised action taken out of frustration, or > > bypass the training step, or don't try hard enough to reach the > > "infringer" and communicate like grown adults. Yup, I did all three. > > Some people need more direct clues, and since violence in the workplace > is usually disallowed ... > > > Suspending an account is a very serious thing to undertake, the effects > > on the suspended person are vast and this power should never lie with > > the person who is feeling the pain. Instead, there are well established > > channels to the body who can make the decision. If QA has a problem with > > a dev for any reason whatsoever, then QA should make a well-thought out > > case to that other body for decision. Anything else is madness and open > > invitation for it to all go south. > > > It's a serious thing, so it should have some consequences. > > I'm mildly amused how everyone wants strong QA, but as soon as QA tries > to actually *do* something it's bad, and overstepping their boundaries, > and NIMBY. > > Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely > ... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down. > We're allowed to send strongly-worded emails, but getting things baked > into policy is too radical. > I think you are framing the argument incorrectly. I'm not suggesting that QA team not have any powers, but that the powers you are asking for are perhaps, not so great. If someone is making tree changes, and they are breaking the tree, and you fix it (using your QA powers to fix it.) Then they revert it. I don't think the proper solution is for QA and a dev to get into a revert war until QA exercises their power to revoke the devs commit access. Simply file a bug and have the developer reprimanded for violating policy. > > And the biggest "flamewar" so far was about cosmetic issues. > Y'know, if I get around to it I'll try to work towards making most of > these warnings fatal, then you can't accidentally add such things. > (And people not using repoman will have some extra fun!) > > Have fun, > > Patrick > > > >
