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
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.
The
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 reported by
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
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, not
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 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
sort of
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'
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' a.k.a. remove some
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,
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 drobbins
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'
Recruitment,
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 devrel
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
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, unless by
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 need to
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
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
themselves than
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
besides, is this
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
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 resolve
I
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 able
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 handle it,
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.
at
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
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
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 which says
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 the only team
-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 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 needs
-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 making
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
devrel's
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
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
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
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 devrel
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
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 email
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
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: script
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 meeting
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
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 approved
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
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
infrastructure
-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
46 matches
Mail list logo
