[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for September

Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:08 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 05:51:07AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
>>> 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
>>> irc.freenode.net) !
>> Is this the new council for which the voting should have just ended, or
>> the old council?
>
> Polls for the council close at 00:00 UTC September 11th, they didn't
> open on Aug 1st. As such it will be three days after the polls close so
> it should be the inaugural meeting of the new council.
>
> --Dan

I wish to add the agenda item, "what kind of QA does gentoo need, and
what kind of QA will gentoo support."

Our current QA team doesn't do much; the tools are lacking in many areas.

Does the community as a whole really care about all these (minor)
violations? Can I as a member of QA just go through and fix them?
Along with this somewhat is package "ownership." I agree that the
maintainer has final say in many areas related to their package (or set
of packages) but breaking QA perhaps shouldn't be one of them; or should
it? Does our current QA policy fail in light of portage's failings (see
glep 42, requests for post_src_depend() action where we detect problems
in use flags prior to merging, USE/SLOT deps ). Should our QA policy
evolve?

I also wish to bring up the games team in this regard as generally the
QA team ignores anything games-*. This comment is not meant to bash the
games team (imho they do an utterly awesome job on almost all of their
stuff); they just happen to violate qa rules doing so ;P

This agenda point is not a "hard point" more-so I seek the council's
recommendation on what you (being the elected council) think Gentoo
needs as far as QA. Last year Halcy0n petitioned for power for the QA
team; it was quite like a ball crushing power (fix it or we will) and it
seemed to have all kinds of frictional issues. This being a global
issue I would like to hear thoughts on how this could be done better; or
we can abandon the idea of a QA team.


--
gentoo-dev RemoveThis @gentoo.org mailing list

Alec Warner wrote:
> needs as far as QA. Last year Halcy0n petitioned for power for the QA
> team; it was quite like a ball crushing power (fix it or we will) and it
> seemed to have all kinds of frictional issues. This being a global
> issue I would like to hear thoughts on how this could be done better; or
> we can abandon the idea of a QA team.

I don't recall that it was that heavy handed at all. It said that the
QA team would work with maintainers to improve the quality of the tree,
and only in *emergency* situations would be empowered to take necessary
measures to address the issue. The major point of contention seemed to
concern the situation where QA and maintainers strongly disagreed on
whether or not a QA problem actually exists and were unable to come to a
resolution between themselves. In that case, the issue would be
appealed to the council for judgement. Now it also stated that the QA
team had veto power over the maintainer until the council can come to a
decision. I personally don't agree with this at all, except in the case
of security related issues. Even so, I think this falls more under the
umbrella of the security team rather than QA.

I do believe the QA team should have the ability to make trivial changes
to ebuilds (such as obvious typos and other minor issues), but all
effort should probably be made to first discuss these issues with the
maintainers themselves. Veto power *needs* to be the absolute last
resource, and should very rarely, if ever, be necessary.


--de.

--
gentoo-dev DeleteThis @gentoo.org mailing list