On 01/20/14 15:59, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend >> people >> >> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable; > > Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm > still on the fence regarding whether we really need to make this > change at all, but things like access suspensions and other > administrative/disciplinary procedures should be documented. I think > whether this is a matter of public record or not is open to debate, > but I don't like the fact that we can really say for sure when/if this > has actually happened.
Speaking as someone who had this power in his day job, for QA to be able to suspend accounts is a very bad idea indeed. It always ends badly. I suspended 20+ accounts in my current job over the years and the number of cases where it was the right thing to do is precisely 0. It was always a case of ill-advised action taken out of frustration, or bypass the training step, or don't try hard enough to reach the "infringer" and communicate like grown adults. Yup, I did all three. Suspending an account is a very serious thing to undertake, the effects on the suspended person are vast and this power should never lie with the person who is feeling the pain. Instead, there are well established channels to the body who can make the decision. If QA has a problem with a dev for any reason whatsoever, then QA should make a well-thought out case to that other body for decision. Anything else is madness and open invitation for it to all go south. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
