| 1 |
Duncan posted <pan.2006.04.24.06.30.40.205111@×××.net>, excerpted below, |
| 2 |
on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:30:41 -0700: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The idea in either case is to minimize the possibility of something |
| 5 |
> occurring without enough of a majority opinion to make the decision look |
| 6 |
> arbitrary or subject to immediate reversal upon the whims of a single QA |
| 7 |
> team member, without making it impotent in certain cases due to a |
| 8 |
> requirement for a unanimous decision. Reason in the middle ground? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Argh! Make that: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The idea in either case is to minimize the possibility of something |
| 13 |
occurring without enough of a majority opinion, SUCH THAT the decision |
| 14 |
looks arbitrary... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
IOW, it looks arbitrary if the majority is only a single person. |
| 17 |
Increasing the necessary majority decreases the appearance of |
| 18 |
arbitrariness. As such, given a suitable super-majority requirement, |
| 19 |
giving the QA team enough authority to be effective shouldn't be an issue, |
| 20 |
because all sides should be comfortable that the decision isn't in fact |
| 21 |
arbitrary, nor could it be, due to the super-majority requirement. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Of course, if the QA team ends up being only a couple people... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 27 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 28 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 29 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives