On Thursday 02 March 2006 04:01, Stuart Herbert wrote: > * There is no proposal for a process to formulate, and gain wide > approval for new QA standards. This week, there's been an example of > the QA team documenting a QA standard *after* a bug was raised about a > QA violation ... and then that document being used as if that > particular QA standard had always been in the document.
i chatted on irc with a few peeps about this and here's what has been rolling around in my noggin ... we're going to have two documents of sorts ... the balls-to-the-wall happy-to-be-hardcore nothing-more-official-than-this devrel document ... and then we're going to have the stop-cant-stop-my-feet QA guidelines which is quite dynamic and meant to outline what the QA team is looking for at any particular point in time to get into the QA guidelines, you go through the QA team ... to get into the devrel document, you go through the devrel doc maintainers. to increase visibility here, i think that all significant changes to policy that are Incorporated into the devrel handbook should have a notice sent to the gentoo dev mailing list first. thus if people strongly object, we can resolve those differences without having people upset when something they disagree with and have never heard of is thrown in their FACE. as for the QA document, there is a QA list where notifications/changes can be sent. then over time we can move relevant pieces of the QA document into the devrel document. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
