Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | > * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the > | > majority of established QA members must agree with the action. > | > | Perhaps pushing it to an open forum on -dev/-core for consensus works > | better here? > > The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless > comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant > future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on > situations where the screwup was too weird to be documented previously. >
The rather blunt point here is to limit the power of the QA team itself. The QA team decides what new policy to enforce, and when the QA team can't agree "the majority of established QA members" must agree to action. Which is in itself rather vague. Perhaps "The majority of active QA members, where an active member is designated as 'a QA member who responds to the corresponding mail to the qa'". This would be similar to how the recent QA lead was chosen, mail was sent, yay's and nay's were collected from those who cared, and then the decision was made. This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; "the established QA members" ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree ( or large subset thereof ) without even necessarily talking to the affected developers. While you may not think that soliciting comments is useful ( and in some limited cases I would agree with you ) giving people the opportunity to comment also means you just covered your ass, in terms of people going "where the hell did that come from?" -Alec Warner
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
