1 |
Hi Mark, |
2 |
|
3 |
This draft seems to be effectively the same as the last one. |
4 |
|
5 |
On 3/2/06, Mark Loeser <halcy0n@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> * The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping |
7 |
> the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and pointing |
8 |
> out issues to maintainers and, where necessary, taking direct action. |
9 |
|
10 |
Same as original version. |
11 |
|
12 |
> * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate, |
13 |
> the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem. |
14 |
|
15 |
Same as original version. |
16 |
|
17 |
> * The QA team may also offer to fix obvious typos and similar minor |
18 |
> issues, and silence from the package maintainers can be taken as agreement in |
19 |
> such situations. |
20 |
|
21 |
Same as original version. |
22 |
|
23 |
> * In the event that a developer still insists that a package does not |
24 |
> break QA standards, an appeal can be made at the next council meeting. The |
25 |
> package should be dealt with per QA's request until such a time that a |
26 |
> decision is made by the council. |
27 |
|
28 |
Same as original version. |
29 |
|
30 |
> * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the majority |
31 |
> of established QA members must agree with the action. |
32 |
|
33 |
Same as original version. |
34 |
|
35 |
> * Just because a particular QA violation has yet to cause an issue does |
36 |
> not change the fact that it is still a QA violation. |
37 |
|
38 |
Same as original version. |
39 |
|
40 |
> * If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team |
41 |
> may request that devrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. |
42 |
> Evidence of past breakages will be presented with this request to |
43 |
> devrel. |
44 |
|
45 |
Same as original version. |
46 |
|
47 |
> * The QA team will maintain a list of current "QA Standards" with |
48 |
> explanations as to why they are problems, and how to fix the problem. The |
49 |
> list is not meant by any means to be a comprehensive document, but rather a |
50 |
> dynamic document that will be updated as new problems are discovered. The QA |
51 |
> team will also do their best to ensure all developer tools are in line with |
52 |
> the current QA standards. |
53 |
|
54 |
The bit about "explanations as to why they are prblems, and how to fix |
55 |
the problem" is new, as is the statement to ensure that all developer |
56 |
tools are in line with the current QA standards, but otherwise this is |
57 |
also the same. |
58 |
|
59 |
I'm sorry, but personally I don't see how this draft is substantially |
60 |
different from the one posted originally. It looks like you've |
61 |
decided not to address the points I raised about your original draft: |
62 |
|
63 |
* There's nothing in this policy about end users. If this QA team is |
64 |
not *focused* on delivering benefit to end users, then (as has |
65 |
happened this week) it becomes a self-serving team, focused instead on |
66 |
what can only be described as a destructive path. No-one benefits |
67 |
from that, no-one at all. |
68 |
|
69 |
* The QA team is asking for more than it needs to perform its role. |
70 |
The UNIX principle is that of "least privilege". Donnie's already |
71 |
pointed out that FreeBSD is able to conduct effective QA without the |
72 |
extra power that the QA team is continuing to ask for. |
73 |
|
74 |
* There is no proposal for a process to formulate, and gain wide |
75 |
approval for new QA standards. This week, there's been an example of |
76 |
the QA team documenting a QA standard *after* a bug was raised about a |
77 |
QA violation ... and then that document being used as if that |
78 |
particular QA standard had always been in the document. |
79 |
|
80 |
Mistakes will always be made by all developers, and good QA is |
81 |
essential to Gentoo's future. We need a good QA team for Gentoo. Not |
82 |
having a QA team is, in my eyes, not an option at all. |
83 |
|
84 |
But, as this week has shown, QA members are also developers (and |
85 |
human), and are just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else. |
86 |
|
87 |
We need a quality assurance team that conducts all its activities in a |
88 |
quality manner. I'm not just talking about personal behaviour, or of |
89 |
any one individual. The way *everything* is done must be in a quality |
90 |
manner. That should mean a high quality process for creating QA |
91 |
standards, having them approved, and making sure developers know what |
92 |
changes are coming and when. That should mean high quality automated |
93 |
tools that cope with the real world, not some ivory tower that has no |
94 |
real pay-off for users. It should mean an interpretation and |
95 |
application of QA standards that is focused on how it improves matters |
96 |
for real users - and not a "tick in a box" QA approach. It should |
97 |
mean a team of educators, not a team out to bully with the mandate to |
98 |
do so. |
99 |
|
100 |
In twelve years of being a professional software engineer, I've never |
101 |
seen a successful QA team that didn't match that description above. |
102 |
|
103 |
Mark, in the discussions about the QA policy, your fallback |
104 |
justification always seems to be "Trust us". I think this week's |
105 |
events have put a big dent in the credibility of that argument, if not |
106 |
holed it below the water line. If the QA team followed processes |
107 |
similar to what I've described above, I believe that this week's |
108 |
events wouldn't have happened. What started off as a worthy piece of |
109 |
QA work, which I'm sure has fixed many real problems for users, |
110 |
degenerated into something altogether unpleasant and unnecessary for |
111 |
all involved. We've all gotten a week older and a week greyer out of |
112 |
this. Have we fixed any real problems that stop our users installing |
113 |
and running Gentoo? No, we haven't. I hope we can all (and I include |
114 |
myself in that) learn something from this to prevent a repeat. |
115 |
|
116 |
I call for Mark's proposed policy to be rejected as it stands. |
117 |
|
118 |
Best regards, |
119 |
Stu |
120 |
|
121 |
-- |
122 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |