On 9/13/18 7:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Mike wrote: > >> Picking random email. > >> I would like to say I'm glad we can discuss our technical differences >> like this with both sides expressing their opinion and reasoning. > >> I would hope in the future we start with this path and not with >> disciplinary action or bugs requesting the removal of commit access. > >> We're showing here we can bring up our points without handing out "QA >> strikes" or some other type of confrontational action. > > Sorry, but I am tired of that antagonising of the QA team. > > There hasn't been any bug about commit access removal. And not sure what > you mean with "QA strike", but there also wasn't any direct QA action on > the package that triggered the current discussion. After being CCed to a > bug, the QA team has merely pointed out to the maintainer that the > package is not in agreement with the current policy (as it is defined in > the devmanual). > > IMHO this is the QA team's purpose. Or what would you expect us to do > instead? Remain silent if asked by another developer to evaluate an > issue? Then we could as well disband QA. > > Also note that there are several remedies if there is disagreement > between a maintainer and QA, like asking QA for an exception, appealing > to the council, or changing the policy in question. > > Ulrich >
I'm sorry you feel I am antagonizing QA. I've never had a problem with QA, personally. And I apologize for writing that commit rights were requested to be removed. My mistake, bugzilla access rights were asked to be removed. I actually thought I was complimenting our process. Seeing people discuss their technical differences. I'm not a fan of more and more and more regulation that I see. Sorry if you don't like that opinion. And by "QA strike", I am referring to the policy that was posted and then rescinded. But, this is all off-topic of this thread.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
