Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 19:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> I'm looking at this as "innocent until proven guilty" versus "guilty
>> until proven innocent." When parties are in disagreement, the _current_
>> situation should stand until the council (or the two groups in question)
>> resolves it. That assumes lack of extenuating circumstances such as
>> security vulnerabilities or major tree breakage.
> 
> The devs asked for a council. A council was elected. The council decided
> that QA trumps devs. If anybody has a problem with that they are free to
> object at the next council meeting.

The council decided that QA trumps devs for documented policy. It didn't
decide, at least from what I saw, that QA could just do whatever they
feel like without any sort of change to the policy.

Thanks,
Donnie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to