On 10/11/2015 09:52 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: > > To my observation the reaction to this has been between displeasure and > dismay. Yesterday the dev-ML was flooded with the first day's > publication of the members' reviews. Firstly the gentoo-commits ML to my > understanding is intended to be used for and by qa members. This > project has one whom we presume has the discretion to declare the use > of the qa hat at whim. >
People have been responding to gentoo-commits ML on dev ML since years. But mostly on smaller scale. I have no knowledge that this is restricted to QA members. The reason this dev-ML attempt was chosen is that we got very hostile and aggressive opinions about our Github activity, telling us it is not only against the social contract, but also not properly "public" and everything in gentoo should be public on our own infra channels (they said). So it seems... however you do it, you do it wrong. Github reviews are not on our own infra channels, private mails are not public, don't spam bugzilla, don't spam the ML... It's not particularly easy to not do it wrong when you have so little options. I suspect this is not even primarily about the chosen platform, but about the fact that review culture can introduce a few negative thoughts such as embarrassment. In order to fix that, we are going to focus the reviews on Github (for developers who are known to be active there), private mails and semi-private mails to aliases. In addition, it will also require a shift of thinking. Reviews are not about exposing a person, but about improving quality and knowledge. For both parties. But I guess I have to make one point very clear again: we are not affiliated with the QA team and this is an attempt to induct peer reviews (even when private), since this has never happened on larger scale in gentoo and people were just reverse-fixing mistakes instead of communicating them in the first place. Which means a great loss for our self-education. So it seems a lot of people have got it wrong what the project is about. It's specifically and explicitly not what the QA team is about, which we said from the very start. It's not about a reviewers monopoly. It's about the opposite. > As someone once put it, it's not the product or message it's the > delivery of the package Yeah, so we can either dwell on that or start looking at the actual product, which I'd expect from the gentoo community.
