| 1 |
Il giorno dom, 23/01/2011 alle 10.00 +0100, Torsten Veller ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The current "QA team's role and purpose" (GLEP 48) always talks about |
| 4 |
> the QA TEAM -- and I think this is good: QA needs a leader who can |
| 5 |
> build |
| 6 |
> a team IMHO. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'd be all for not having to specify so much the presence of the QA |
| 9 |
lead, but the problem lies in what the past year taught us: devrel will |
| 10 |
refuse to cooperate to anybody on the QA team but the lead. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
With "cooperate" here I don't only mean "listen to the requests for |
| 13 |
suspension"; devrel refused to keep the team as a whole in the loop of |
| 14 |
pending requests, as well as ignoring any evidence/suggestion coming |
| 15 |
from single team members. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Which is why they "force" us to actually specify a lead in our very |
| 18 |
definition. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> "the lead will be held responsible for their actions" |
| 22 |
> I think this can be dropped: the team is responsible for its actions |
| 23 |
> anyway |
| 24 |
> (whatever that means) and the lead will be replaced soon too. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It's a matter of bringing some balance in the game; if we drop the four |
| 27 |
months rule, one could expect that the lead could call in his cronies |
| 28 |
just to take over QA. By forcing a lead to take direct responsibility |
| 29 |
for the people he or she let join the team. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Maybe I should specify it better, but it was intended as implicitly not |
| 32 |
making the lead be directly responsible for the members that were on the |
| 33 |
team _before_. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> "be ascribed to bona-fide mistake" -- |
| 36 |
> how can we evaluate this? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Do you think this rule would have been used in the past? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
This would be easy to pass under the "it's just common sense" idea, but |
| 41 |
I wanted to have it in anyway. If a developer ends up breaking the tree |
| 42 |
by simply not thinking about the effects of his or her action, that's |
| 43 |
bad, but it's one thing. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
When a developer knows very well what his or her actions imply but still |
| 46 |
applies them without caring about the repercussions, that cannot be |
| 47 |
ascribed to bona-fide. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
As an example, think about a developer committing a non-masked package, |
| 50 |
the installation of which prevents Portage from completing its tasks |
| 51 |
correctly. By default it's just a mistake, but if said developer |
| 52 |
actually provided the fix beforehand to the Portage team but then didn't |
| 53 |
wait for it to be deployed before committing the package, then it cannot |
| 54 |
be a mistake in good faith. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 58 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives