On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:00:14 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I > see is someone who has probably never had to do it for real. Can you avoid top posting? Had to scroll down to see who you reply to. > People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like having their > freely given time nullified and access removed because one person > thought it was deserved. We take a positive approach instead, access is "temporarily suspended". > Do you realise the message that is sent by denying someone access? You > are saying that person is not good enough to work on Gentoo. Do you > really want to send that message? That is an assumption and depends on the actual message you send to that person; "temporarily suspending" someone goes with a reason. If that reason is to talk with the person as to fixing up the breakage, where afterwards the access gets restored; we're sending a different message. > Vast wholescale breakage is very rare and not something you can base > policy on. Policy is there to prevent wholescale breakage; imagine Gentoo without a policy present, that would be very rare. What do you then base on? > Rich's most recent reply is the most sane proposal I've seen so far. > Revoking access is a human problem and is solved with human solutions. Which message? Why is it the most sane? > Do beware the law of unintended side-effects. Or unexpected benefits? Yes, a law exists; but what are the benefits compared to the cost? -- 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
