Mike Frysinger wrote: >>As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra >>should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever >>said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for >>disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reported by the QA >>team > > works for me ... best to keep the number of 'bad guys' down to a min :D
+1 Let QA handle QA and devrel handle developer relations. If devrel processes take too much time that's something that should be improved inside devrel, not by splitting devrel role onto multiple projects. Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce, let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to do QA, not sure telling them they will do QA+police will help in motivating them. -- Koon -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
