On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:42:19AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
> > What about giving QA temporary revoke powers just like infra (Curtis
> > Napier's idea), traditionalist? Fixing devrel's resolutions policies and
> > Curtis' idea don't have to be mutually-exclusive.
>
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> What about giving QA temporary revoke powers just like infra (Curtis
> Napier's idea), traditionalist? Fixing devrel's resolutions policies and
> Curtis' idea don't have to be mutually-exclusive.
The idea behind -infra temporary revoke power is to react to emergency
situa
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal
> structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to
> internal structural issues, but that's just me 8)
It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure
Gentoo' ha
Mike Frysinger wrote:
his comment wasnt directed at you in any way, it was to try and get support
for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm
-mike
Oh good, I wasn't sure what he meant. Thanks for clearing that up spanky.
+1 for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm. :-)
-
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 07:45 pm, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> >>I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
> >>competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:38:04PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce,
> | let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to
> | do QA
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce,
| let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to
| do QA, not sure telling them they will do QA+police will help in
| motivating th
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra
>>should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever
>>said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for
>>disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reporte
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
> competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
> sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the
> tree until de
Lance Albertson wrote:
snip
...
I tend to agree with Donnie on this partially. Devrel's main focus isn't
the QA of the tree, its dealing with developers. QA should have the
authority to limit access to the tree if someone isn't following the
guidelines properly. They are the ones with the technic
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 11:10 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra
> should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever
> said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for
> disciplinary issues inclu
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 5:22 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> I would like there to be a clause that infra has the ability to at least
> temporarily revoke access to have the ability to protect our servers if
> something came up quickly. I've always made sure any permanent removals
> go through de
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:21:42PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> > different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> GLEP's are developed after the details are ironed out in public developer
> forums ... their purpose isnt to fast track changes through the Gentoo
> council to kill long threads
>
> not saying that is what you meant, just mak
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 10:21 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> > different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> > devrel's responsibilities are
>
> It sounds like somebody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with
> different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what
> devrel's responsibilities are
It sounds like somebody needs to take a look at
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 08:22 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing
> >>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible
> >>for revoking access.
> >
> > no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is th
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing
>>developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible
>>for revoking access.
>
>
> no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is the only team which may revoke access',
> but
> it is the only team w
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:59 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that
> > they handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access
>
> I thought this was written somewhere too, but I can't seem to find it
> a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that they
handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access
I thought this was written somewhere too, but I can't seem to find it
anywhere. Do you know where it says this?
It certainly says they're resp
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
> > automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
> > supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra.
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:31 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which has
> > no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. devrel has
> > all of these.
>
> And devrel is the wrong group to han
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
> automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
> supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra.
>
>> at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 05:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
QA can work faster since it's less objected do and doesn't need endless
committees and documentation -- the documentation is the broken code.
That's not true. The documentation is the developer guide, the ebuil
Mike Frysinger wrote:
so your previous off-topic comment about redtape in devrel processes was
irrelevant :P
Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not
automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to
supply evidence why this should stay betwee
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 05:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> QA can work faster since it's less objected do and doesn't need endless
> committees and documentation -- the documentation is the broken code.
That's not true. The documentation is the developer guide, the ebuild faq,
pertinent GLE
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:22 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 06:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands
> > off the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done
> > with the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolv
Mike Frysinger wrote:
QA team identifies a misbehaving dev who refuses to change and then hands off
the name/relevant data to devrel ... QA team then is pretty much done with
the issue and the rest is up to devrel to resolve
I disagree that devrel should be involved. I think QA should hand off
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:02:45PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in
> > > the previous discussions on the devrel list
> > >
> > > bes
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:43 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in
> > the previous discussions on the devrel list
> >
> > besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap
> > themsel
Mike Frysinger wrote:
this side note is unrelated to the point being made and really belongs in the
previous discussions on the devrel list
besides, is this a bad thing ? i'd prefer to have devs settle crap themselves
than ever contacting devrel :P
It's very relevant, because it supports th
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 02:04 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - in the case of developers who do not wish to follow accepted
> > policies/guidelines/etc even after being enlightened, devrel is notified
> > and takes appropriate corrective action
>
> - in the case of a ne
Mike Frysinger wrote:
- in the case of developers who do not wish to follow accepted
policies/guidelines/etc even after being enlightened, devrel is notified and
takes appropriate corrective action
- in the case of a need to take appropriate corrective action, devrel
gets tied up in investiga
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:50 pm, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> >
> > > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> > > devrel dev stating that wh
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 01:09 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:22:32 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> | > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
> |
> | No it hasn't, un
Lance Albertson wrote:
Ah, I see. To the best of my knowledge that just needs to be worked out
w/ the GLEP 15 people and infra. I dropped into -infra and they said
that there's space for it, but that bug # 98282 lists a couple of
contentious points. (Also, the gentooexperimental scripts "abou
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> > I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> > devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> > policies (not using repoma
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:22:32 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
| >
| > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
|
| No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
| like devre
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tree,
> etcetera) that enforcemen
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:22:32AM CDT]
> >
> > The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drobbins
> set it up'
>
> Recruitm
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
>>The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
>
>
> No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
> like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drob
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:33:59AM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
> The actual powers/role of devrel has always been a grey area.
No it hasn't, unless by 'gray area' you mean 'a few people who don't
like devrel claim it shouldn't be able to do anything because drobbins
set it up'
Recruitment,
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>
right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
it done ;)
>>
>>They *could* do some 'creative re-org
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>>right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
>>>anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
>>>it done ;)
>
> They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some folks from
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
> anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
> it done ;)
They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
>
>>>I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
>>>time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
>>
>>or rather move it from gentooexperimental.org to "official" gentoo
>
On Monday 12 September 2005 10:13 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Portage Tree Items) added?
> | > The only issue holding it back is that a few developers have stated
> | > outright tha
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Portage Tree Items) added?
| > The only issue holding it back is that a few developers have stated
| > outright that they refuse to comply with it, and I don't see it as
| > fai
On Monday 12 September 2005 03:25 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:04:10 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
> | September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or
> | send an email to [
On Monday 12 September 2005 06:00 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
> > > I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
> > > time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
> >
> > or rather move it from g
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:04, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> glep37: Virtuals Deprecation
Need to defer this one until next time. There's a couple of small changes
that need to be made, but enough that it'll need to go through the wringer
again.
--
Jason Stubbs
pgpwgSAKrvcHU.pgp
Description:
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
> > I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
> > time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
> or rather move it from gentooexperimental.org to "official" gentoo
> infrastructure (?)
Ah, I s
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
> > I'd like to see the following items added:
> > glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
> I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approve
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
> I'd like to see the following items added:
> glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the i
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:28:58PM EDT]
> Yikes, that's short notice.
Sorry about that, the council is moving quickly on my account. I'll
be out of email contact for the second two weeks of September, leaving
this Saturday, so we're trying to squeeze the meeting in before then
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Yikes, that's short notice. Of course, almost by definition the first
> meeting had to have a fairly limited amount of lead time. *Shrug* Any
> chance of getting a schedule for the next couple of meetings or so?
> (Actually, I'd be quite happy if the date of the next meet
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Added by Grant Goodyear :
> glep40: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs
>
> Added by Brian Harring :
> glep33: Eclass Restructure/Redesign
> glep37: Virtuals Deprecation
>
I'd like to see the following items added:
glep 15: s
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:04:10 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
| September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or
| send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Por
Thierry Carrez wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 02:04:10PM CDT]
> The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
> at 1900 UTC.
>
> The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
> September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or send
> an e
Thierry Carrez wrote:
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
And the place?
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hello everyone,
You haven't heard much from the council members, we were busy trying to
find the best date for the first meeting...
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
September
63 matches
Mail list logo
