On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 16:29 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Well, instead of putting the debate into an even larger crowd, this
> > enables the QA team to act in the way it sees best first. If people
> > believe we were wrong, then we give them the option to talk to the
> > council about one of our changes. Also, we aren't unwilling to hear
> > alternatives and we hope to work with the maintainer on these problems.
>
> As Stuart mentioned, this is not a good idea. If the maintainer
> disagrees with QA-made changes, the changes should be reverted until a
> higher-level decision is made. This mirrors FreeBSD policy [1], which
> seems to be working quite well for them. A particularly relevant part is
> this:
>
> "Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the
> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may
> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion."
I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say.
If I had to put a pecking order together how I think it would
look/should be would result in something like the following.
gentoo-(infra|council)
- gentoo-security
- gentoo-(devrel|base)
-gentoo-qa
- gentoo-(hardened|server)
- gentoo-(desktop|misc|maintainers|etc..)
--
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
