On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300 > Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Futher, no policy was violated, none, whatsoever. > The "appeal to ..." policy was, but it was a first time event; this
I don't (completely) agree with that, see below: > can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action, > that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council. That is what was done, with the members online at #gentoo-qa, where some of the members did not exactly agree with the act of masking at the stage we were in. Still, I see many points where this could have been handled differently, better, and I certainly see how you could interpret that bulletin point of the GLEP differently. > >> This is an individual, albeit a QA member, disagreeing with a design >> model. > How can we disagree with a design model we didn't know about yet? I get your point, however, I still believe the related people were involved by other communication channels. If use of those other communication channels is so unpreferred over the mailing list, I believe the QA/council/comrel whoever is in charge of the policy dictating gentoo-dev being a optional ML, should review that policy and make it a mandatory one, if it really is. It would have certainly made me see things differently right from the start, that is, what some seem to be after here? I believe by that, we would have avoided our (you, and me) earlier "problem" (you know what I'm talking about, no need to refresh it here.) > >> If joining QA team means you get to dictate, alone, how others do >> their work, even when they are not breaking anything while doing so, > That is also a part of quality assurance. I suspect we have a slight language barrier here. If you mean if QA should be monitoring every commit that goes in to the tree and monitor the tree as whole, then you would be right. That's what I do daily basis, and I suspect many others do as well -- being subscribed to the gentoo-commits ML and informing others of possible mishaps. You don't need to be part of the QA team for that. However, that's not what I meant, by 'dictate how others do their work', I meant that one literally, let me demostrate with completely made-up example from the on-going multilib thread on the ML where yngwin doesn't agree with the multilib design model, if he were a QA member and wanted to revert the tree to a state it was before the conversions, he'd have powers to do that alone. Note, I do not leverage the use of subslots in tree to the multilib issue, at all, and I realize the example wasn't perfect, but it was the best I could come up with such short notice. > >> without the rest of the team, we'd be setting a bad precedence. > Per the GLEP; when there is disagreement, the rest can vote on it; > beyond that, there's also the Council. I suspect we agree, but have different understanding of 'disagreement' > >> The QA membership is not a large trout you get to bash others with >> when you feel like it. > Of course; but this isn't what is happening, is it? Maybe not anymore, but that's certainly what it looked to be earlier. > >> Otherwise everyone would be lining up the QA team membership just to >> protect their work from others. > Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo; > and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo. > You are right, but that's not what I said.
