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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature