>>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> Dean Stephens schrieb:
>>> QA and Comrel are special in that they can take disciplinary
>>> action against non-members, which there is no recourse against
>>> except appeal to the Council.
>>> 
>> At the very least: QA, Comrel, IRC ops (in every project specific
>> channel), planet/universe, forums, and wiki.

> Council, QA and Comrel are effectively the governing bodies of
> Gentoo, enacting and/or enforcing project-wide policy on their own
> accord. The others that you mention have only direct power in a very
> limited area.

At least for QA this is quite an oversimplified description of the
team's role. Quoting GLEP 48, first bullet point of the specification:
"The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and
pointing out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct
action."

The latter is meant in the sense of direct action to the tree (and
even then, overriding maintainers is not the default). The QA team
doesn't have the power to take any direct disciplinary action against
developers.

Theoretically, in the case of continuing breakage caused by a dev, QA
could ask ComRel to have that dev's commit access suspended. I cannot
remember any case where such a measure was taken (correct me if I am
wrong).

So, it appears that QA has teeth but need not use them. ;)

Ulrich

Attachment: pgpOPB9l6BwRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to