| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> | > * In the case of disagreement on policy among QA members, the |
| 4 |
> | > majority of established QA members must agree with the action. |
| 5 |
> | |
| 6 |
> | Perhaps pushing it to an open forum on -dev/-core for consensus works |
| 7 |
> | better here? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless |
| 10 |
> comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant |
| 11 |
> future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by policy on |
| 12 |
> situations where the screwup was too weird to be documented previously. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The rather blunt point here is to limit the power of the QA team itself. |
| 16 |
The QA team decides what new policy to enforce, and when the QA team |
| 17 |
can't agree "the majority of established QA members" must agree to |
| 18 |
action. Which is in itself rather vague. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Perhaps "The majority of active QA members, where an active member is |
| 21 |
designated as 'a QA member who responds to the corresponding mail to the |
| 22 |
qa'". This would be similar to how the recent QA lead was chosen, mail |
| 23 |
was sent, yay's and nay's were collected from those who cared, and then |
| 24 |
the decision was made. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; "the |
| 27 |
established QA members" ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree |
| 28 |
( or large subset thereof ) without even necessarily talking to the |
| 29 |
affected developers. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
While you may not think that soliciting comments is useful ( and in some |
| 32 |
limited cases I would agree with you ) giving people the opportunity to |
| 33 |
comment also means you just covered your ass, in terms of people going |
| 34 |
"where the hell did that come from?" |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-Alec Warner |
Archives