1 |
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 +0000 "Stuart Herbert" |
2 |
<stuart.herbert@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
| > Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition |
4 |
| > of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really |
5 |
| > hope problems never come down to this, which is why we left it |
6 |
| > worded this way. |
7 |
| |
8 |
| Me too. But it will, sooner or later, and when something isn't an |
9 |
| emergency, there's no reason why a change cannot wait until the |
10 |
| dispute has been resolved. |
11 |
|
12 |
And, when such a case occurs, there's nothing *requiring* QA to commit |
13 |
before the dispute is resolved. It's extremely likely that QA will work |
14 |
hard to ensure that everyone is happy before something gets changed. |
15 |
However, there are situations where waiting for a month would lead to |
16 |
considerable damage, and in those situations QA must be free to act. |
17 |
|
18 |
| Without these safeguards, my feeling is that the QA team is free to |
19 |
| enforce without concensus at all times. I don't believe that is in |
20 |
| the best interests of Gentoo, and is a significant shift in the way we |
21 |
| govern ourselves. |
22 |
|
23 |
The only change is that someone will actually be doing the enforcing, |
24 |
rather than allowing egregious QA violations to sit in the tree for |
25 |
years because one or two developers refuse to accept that what they're |
26 |
doing is wrong. |
27 |
|
28 |
| I don't see any compelling reason for the QA team to be judge, jury |
29 |
| and executioner, with the council acting as a post-execution appeals |
30 |
| panel. |
31 |
|
32 |
'Executioner' is far too harsh a term. QA is fixing packages. QA is not |
33 |
permanently removing developers from the project, nor even suspending |
34 |
commit access. |
35 |
|
36 |
| Wasn't devrel broken up into separate investigation and |
37 |
| enforcement teams over these very same concerns, raised by a member of |
38 |
| the QA team? |
39 |
|
40 |
Heh. This is a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem. It's also an |
41 |
invalid argument, since there's a huge difference between fixing a |
42 |
package and kicking off a developer. |
43 |
|
44 |
| You haven't presented that evidence, or if you have, I haven't seen it |
45 |
| since getting up this morning. |
46 |
|
47 |
Dude. You had to write it up in your user guide. That's a pretty good |
48 |
indication that something is extremely screwed up. |
49 |
|
50 |
| Instead, we have a proposed QA policy that says "we're always right, |
51 |
| and when we're not, we still get our way until you convince the |
52 |
| council to let you back out the changes we demand." I think that's |
53 |
| unreasonable. That's why I oppose this point. To me, it smacks of |
54 |
| wanting to have your own way whether you're right or not. I can't |
55 |
| support that. |
56 |
|
57 |
No, it says that the QA team can, where necessary, act without having |
58 |
to wait for a month for a council decision. |
59 |
|
60 |
| As already mentioned, if it's not documented, how on earth do you |
61 |
| expect to raise the general quality of the QA done by each and every |
62 |
| developer? How do you expect to be able to consistently enforce your |
63 |
| own QA standards? |
64 |
| |
65 |
| If it's not documented, then you're left with making it up as you go |
66 |
| along. That's in no-one's interest. |
67 |
|
68 |
Are you saying that because it's not documented that one should not |
69 |
call mkdir in global scope, the QA team cannot expect people to know |
70 |
not to do so? |
71 |
|
72 |
|
73 |
| This comes back to my point about the QA team needing to be an |
74 |
| educational role first and foremost. |
75 |
|
76 |
Sure. No-one's disputing that. Hence why we're filing all these bugs, |
77 |
rather than just fixing things straight off. |
78 |
|
79 |
| It's not silly. What do you have to fear about having your proposed |
80 |
| QA standards backed by key teams? If your arguments have merit, they |
81 |
| will be supported. |
82 |
|
83 |
Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough |
84 |
to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken. |
85 |
|
86 |
| I think you're already abusing that power, by calling for a package to |
87 |
| be removed when it's causing no trouble to anyone, and when the |
88 |
| workarounds create a worse user experience than what is already there. |
89 |
| When the developer in question declines to remove the package, your |
90 |
| response is a proposed QA mandate that is unbalanced. |
91 |
|
92 |
No no no. We asked for the package to be fixed. You refused, and |
93 |
repeatedly closed the bug on us. Since QA couldn't fix the package |
94 |
cleanly without help from the maintainer, the more drastic solution was |
95 |
proposed. Had you, instead of closing the bug and refusing to |
96 |
acknowledge the problem, offered alternatives straight away, QA could |
97 |
have worked with you to get the thing fixed. This has happened on other |
98 |
QA bugs, where a developer thought of a different solution to the |
99 |
problem -- on other bugs, there was no problem because said developer |
100 |
started a discussion rather than closing the bug off as WONTFIX, |
101 |
INVALID or CANTFIX. |
102 |
|
103 |
-- |
104 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
105 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
106 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |