| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 <mgorny@gentoo.org>
Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>
|
Michał Górny
Ulrich Müller
GitWeb