On 05/24/11 10:44, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 24/05/2011 03:01 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote:
>> On 05/23/11 12:22, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2011 02:03 ¼¼, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>>>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't
>>>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and
>>>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team.
>>>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members
>>>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce.
>>>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus.
>>> 5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is
>>> actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own?
>> I am following this issue and the bugs with Samuli and Arfrever etc. I
>> just don't have anything to say. If we feel elections are necessary, I
>> will participate. I think I am up to speed on all of what's been going
>> on enough to voice my opinion intelligently.
>> As to whether or not we need elections early, I don't think we do. I
>> personally consider this entire issue to be a giant pile of nonsense. We
>> are arguing over ChangeLogs. I can think of so many more important
>> important issues than that to find solutions to. We also can easily
>> automate ChangeLog generation etc as long as we want to log everything,
>> in which case this entire fiasco would be moot. (There are also other
>> solutions to this set of problems we could consider.) However, at the
>> moment, the only thing I see is a pissing match over the current policy.
>> Both sides have technical merits. However, we are creating a very public
>> scene with all of this, and that is something I down right do not
>> approve of. When we want to get back to the technical issue itself, I
>> will gladly voice my opinion.
>> I like to think that QA is a decent team of people. I've worked with
>> most people on the team in the past couple months. Having said that, I
>> don't think spending an hour or so every month or two making sure
>> everyone is on the same page would be a bad idea. I also don't think
>> formalizing some of the procedures etc would be a bad idea. There was
>> one idea I thought was interesting on bug
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097 comment 51. None the
>> less, that is all a topic for a separate thread.
> I am not talking about elections. What I want to say is that QA is not a
> team. We do not act as team but rather as individuals based on their own
> will and temper. A team is supposed to have meetings, take team
> decisions, discuss problems and find solutions that are voted by the
> majority of the members. Please tell me. Who are the members of QA? Are
> all the 14 people listed on the web page? Is this really the QA team?
> Does the current situation reflect reality at all? The way I see it. QA
> team is actually a group of people with elevated privileges. But
> definitely not a team.
I am inclined to agree with you. As I mentioned, I don't think a team
meeting once in a while would be a bad idea. I also like Thomas'
proposed idea to cut anyone from the team who doesn't vote. A little bit
more of team unity / direction would go a long way, especially given the
nature of QA work.
I think this would be a great topic for a new thread. Whoever gets to it
first can start it. =)
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index