Il giorno ven, 03/09/2010 alle 19.43 +0300, Petteri Räty ha scritto: > > It doesn't require infra as DevRel has the needed powers to shut down > access. DevRel is needed any way to process the retirement. I think > infra should only be the fallback if DevRel people with needed access > are not available fast enough.
If you couldn't notice, we're explicitly trying to get this done without DevRel intervention at first. Right now we have something along these lines: QA team member finds the screwup → reports to QA lead → ask nicely the devrel read → devrel can sit thinking about it. In the mean time, the person who was originally caught can keep committing, eventually bringing up a problem worse than the previous one, and so on so forth. What _I_ would like to see for QA? (and think others would agree) QA team member finds the screwup → track down another one that agrees on the problem being big enough → they ask infra to suspend access → devrel can either negotiate for the reinstatement or proceed with retirement. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
