|author||Michał Górny <email@example.com>||2019-04-12 16:26:40 +0200|
|committer||Ulrich Müller <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2019-05-13 20:42:56 +0200|
|parent||glep-0063: Require encryption subkey, and make primary certify-only (diff)|
glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions
Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind of disciplinary actions can be issued by QA and under what circumstances they can be exercised. According to the old wording, QA could only request 're-evaluating commit rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of confusion. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely serves as a proxy executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows. Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo, which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned in actions having social consequences rather than technical. Secondly, it clearly defines that the QA team can issue a temporary ban (with the upper limit of 14 days) via an internal team vote. In this case there is no necessity of involving ComRel, and QA can request executing this disciplinary decision straight from Infra. Thirdly, the old policy is clarified as applying to permanent bans. In case of repeated offenses, QA requests ComRel to evaluate the case. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/684192 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <email@example.com> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/glep-0048.rst b/glep-0048.rst
index f9773c0..e844a93 100644
@@ -4,10 +4,10 @@ Title: QA Team's Role and Purpose
Author: Mark Loeser <email@example.com>
Type: Standards Track
-Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08
+Post-History: 2006-04-24, 2006-09-05, 2011-06-08, 2019-04-12
@@ -76,9 +76,13 @@ tree policies are respected.
made by the council.
* Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does not
change the fact that it is still a QA violation.
-* If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team
- may request that Comrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights.
- Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to Comrel.
+* If a particular developer persistently causes QA violations (actions that
+ negatively impact the behavior of Gentoo systems, work of other developers
+ or infrastructure facilities), the QA team may issue a temporary revocation
+ of developer's commit access (ban), up to 14 days. In case of repeated
+ offenses, the QA team may request that ComRel re-evaluate the commit access.
+ All the evidence of the violation, as well as ban length will be evaluated
+ and voted on by the QA team for each case individually.
* The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with explanations
as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The list is not
meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a dynamic