| 1 |
On 02/25/2014 12:46 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> Funny how every time a controversial decision gets made, somebody |
| 4 |
>> inevitably tries to undermine the authority of the group making the |
| 5 |
>> decision. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> In my understanding, the issue you want to address is whether the |
| 8 |
>> QA team has authority over tree policy. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Will add to the agenda. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Thanks, I would like to phrase the question a little more precisely: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I would like to ask council to state whether the QA team has the |
| 15 |
> authority to mandate a policy when there is neither general agreement |
| 16 |
> that this policy is a good thing, nor the policy would avert any kind |
| 17 |
> of immediate serious problem for users. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Since there will always be disagreement and subjective interpretation |
| 20 |
this can also be rephrased as: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
"I'd like to ask the council to reconsider having a QA team" |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
How do you expect improvement to happen when the only "legal" action is, |
| 25 |
err, writing a strongly-worded letter? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>> I happen to disagree. GLEP 48's point about maintaining "QA |
| 28 |
>> Standards" applies to this. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> "QA Standards" are not really defined in GLEP 48 either. Maybe council |
| 31 |
> could also clarify whether "QA Standard" is just another name for |
| 32 |
> "tree policy". |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Best regards, |
| 36 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
Archives