Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not > automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to > supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra. > >> at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which >> has no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. >> devrel has all of these. > > > And devrel is the wrong group to handle it, so QA needs to come up with > some guidelines.
I tend to agree with Donnie on this partially. Devrel's main focus isn't the QA of the tree, its dealing with developers. QA should have the authority to limit access to the tree if someone isn't following the guidelines properly. They are the ones with the technical know how to make the judgment on that. Obviously, they will need to come up with guidelines if someone does make a goof up. Give them some probationary time, maybe make them take the quiz again to improve their ebuild skills. I just don't think devrel is the right place for that kind of authority. I kind of see devrel as the last resort for resolving developer issues. If QA has done all it can to help improve someone or deal with their problems, then devrel can take over it. Give the power to the right people so they can do the right kind of work and decisions. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
