Stuart Herbert wrote: > [...] > Mark, in the discussions about the QA policy, your fallback > justification always seems to be "Trust us". I think this week's > events have put a big dent in the credibility of that argument, if not > holed it below the water line. If the QA team followed processes > similar to what I've described above, I believe that this week's > events wouldn't have happened. What started off as a worthy piece of > QA work, which I'm sure has fixed many real problems for users, > degenerated into something altogether unpleasant and unnecessary for > all involved. We've all gotten a week older and a week greyer out of > this. Have we fixed any real problems that stop our users installing > and running Gentoo? No, we haven't. I hope we can all (and I include > myself in that) learn something from this to prevent a repeat. > > I call for Mark's proposed policy to be rejected as it stands.
"Trust us" sounds like a good justification to me. If the council grants the QA team the right to preempt maintainers for major QA violations, they will indeed have power and may abuse it. But if their use of this power is obviously abusive, the council can revert its decision and cut the balls from that QA team. So I'm for trusting them and see. We need more QA and they can't do their job properly the way it's working now. -- Thierry Carrez (Koon) Gentoo Linux Security && Council Member -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
