| 1 |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:48 +0000 |
| 2 |
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Its not QAs decision, if the breakage was intentional or not. A |
| 5 |
> single body, in this case, QA, cannot be both the police and the |
| 6 |
> judicary. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> QA can and should be capable of finding wrongs, preventing further |
| 9 |
> damage and causing the problem to get fixed. Thats damage limitaion. |
| 10 |
> If preventing further damage involves revoking commit rights pending |
| 11 |
> full investigation, thats fine by me. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Determining the root cause, and determining long term prevention |
| 14 |
> takes some investigation. QA may present evidence but its Devrels job |
| 15 |
> to weigh the evidence and pass sentence. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Thank you for that. What in the recent past has perspired is that QA |
| 18 |
has its place, after the fact, and that whoever feels to be in place to |
| 19 |
deal out QA (and I think this has gone wrong a few times recently) is |
| 20 |
required to: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
1) state and/or explain policy specifically where it is being not |
| 23 |
adhered to; |
| 24 |
2) offer alternatives where policy is not adhered to. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
There should be no way that someone in the QA team could be above |
| 27 |
any /other/ developer. Anyone who is a developer is one, and anyone in |
| 28 |
the QA team still has the same hierarchical place. If there are QA |
| 29 |
issues, then logical and technical arguing should suffice - not some |
| 30 |
perceived hierarchy derived from being in some team. Thank you. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
jer |
Archives