On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:03:22 +0100 Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> With this in mind, i currently dont see any case where QA would need > the ability to remove the commit access of a dev, so i dont see a > need for this glep update. The case you have enumerated is just one possible case, this is a case where policy is in place; it is however not always the case that there is policy, or perhaps even that policy is unclear. In these other cases the QA team has to take an actual decision instead of "it is policy"; in such cases, the reasoning behind this becomes technical and you get the whole idea we have been discussing here. Besides that, you also have the possibility for bigger breakages to happen; regardless of whether or not they are written down in policy. In some of these cases the roles of QA and ComRel become questionable; cfr. the whole discussion on #gentoo-qa, where I also asked the reverse question as to why QA has the power to suspend people in a technical area like the Portage tree when it is not part of their terrains. And just to make it clear one more time; it is the ability to "temporarily" "suspend" the commit access, as a means to get the developer to contact us where the developer was otherwise unavailable or intended to not communicate or listen to us. It is no way an actual removal or permanent decision; or well, it might be if this is about repeated behavior, but that's a whole different story... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
