On 01/22/14 14:34, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You >> > are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you >> > really want to send that message? > Yes. And I have no problem being the Evil Guy who pulls the trigger, > err, presses the enter key. > > You are saying that *any* contribution should be accepted just to not > hurt someones feelings.
No, I'm not even remotely saying that. Please go back and read gain what I did say. I never mentioned anything about "any contribution". What I did say comes after the qualifier "by denying someone access", which is a very far cry indeed from "any contribution". I also have no problem being the Evil Guy, because I am that sonofabitch. I really know what happens when you suspend/nuke/delete access because I have done it. And every single time it was the wrong thing to do. The only time it was acceptable is for a runaway script or similar, or an honest mistake where I can fix the fallout far faster than the user can. As the sysadmin and root, I know more about the systems than the users do, similarly in Gentoo land it's a fair assumption that the average QA person is more knowledgeable about the tree and policies than the average dev. So when QA takes action in a spirit of help and with communication in place, all is good and things usually work out well. When it swings the other way and suspension is done as a means of punishment (to whatever degree) then QA has stepped beyond the bounds of what QA is about and into something else. I still don't see any suggestions in this thread on how to limit the scope of what QA wants. No-one will seriously try prevent a good QA guy from limiting damage, but what happens when QA itself abuses the policy? And it will happen, we both know this. How does QA propose to curb that downside? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
