https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/548d9c439a73ae38756c0b92a28137ea I think it's ready for the Council vote.
To clarify: As the ComRel lead I fully support the change, as I find ComRel presense in the glep needless.
v2 sent for review after IRC feedback: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/20aa5ce4fe2305d7569f68d9b77d4485
v3: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a9d6dc3cf28345a2e96c2cfd164226f2
Created attachment 576260 [details] 0001-glep-0048-Provide-clear-rules-for-disciplinary-actio.patch v4 Here's update with s/30 days/14 days/, as requested by Council. Also s/re-evaluates/re-evaluate/ as pointed out by Arfrever.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #4) > Created attachment 576260 [details] > 0001-glep-0048-Provide-clear-rules-for-disciplinary-actio.patch v4 > > Here's update with s/30 days/14 days/, as requested by Council. It still says "30 days" in the commit message. :p
Created attachment 576416 [details] .patch Fixed commit message.
Created attachment 576478 [details, diff] .patch Removed Proctors period reference.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?id=cd46c502109d6204d76379e1f3f84bfa365147a9 commit cd46c502109d6204d76379e1f3f84bfa365147a9 Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-04-12 14:26:40 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-05-13 18:42:56 +0000 glep-0048: Provide clear rules for disciplinary actions Update the wording of GLEP 48 to provide clear information on what kind of disciplinary actions can be issued by QA and under what circumstances they can be exercised. According to the old wording, QA could only request 're-evaluating commit rights' from ComRel. This is very unclear, and has been a source of confusion. Firstly, it is unclear whether ComRel merely serves as a proxy executing the QA team's decision, or whether it is supposed to make independent judgment (which would be outside its scope). Secondly, it suggests that the only disciplinary action possible would be 're-evaluating commits rights' which sounds like an euphemism for removing commit access permanently. The new wording aims to make things clear, and make QA able to issue short-term disciplinary actions without involving ComRel, similarly to how Proctors work. Explanation for the individual points follows. Firstly, it aims to clearly define the domain of QA actions, and set a better distinction between QA and ComRel. In this context, QA is concerned whenever the developer's action technically affects Gentoo, which includes breaking user systems, Infrastructure tooling, other packages, etc. ComRel/Proctors on the other hand are concerned in actions having social consequences rather than technical. Secondly, it clearly defines that the QA team can issue a temporary ban (with the upper limit of 14 days) via an internal team vote. In this case there is no necessity of involving ComRel, and QA can request executing this disciplinary decision straight from Infra. Thirdly, the old policy is clarified as applying to permanent bans. In case of repeated offenses, QA requests ComRel to evaluate the case. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/684192 Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> glep-0048.rst | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
