| 1 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> > hmm? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> To be fair, I had a long discussion with this regarding when QA has the |
| 5 |
> authority to temporarily ban a developer. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Cool. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> In the case where policy is missing, QA does not have a clear case |
| 11 |
> of authority there. It becomes a more murky area. I've tried to |
| 12 |
> very much encourage QA to both publish the policies they want to |
| 13 |
> enforce, and automate enforcement with better tooling (repoman or |
| 14 |
> otherwise). Being transparent and consistent in enforcement of |
| 15 |
> policy goes a long way for getting developers on your side. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Absolutely. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> So in short, while one could read that passage as you did, I don't |
| 21 |
> think that is their intention. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
To be clear, I don't think so either. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 27 |
> I was really happy to see a public notice of meeting and a published |
| 28 |
> summary. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yes, me too! |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I still think it seems like QA could essentially introduce arbitrary |
| 34 |
new policies and 2 weeks later be expected to effect them. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Fine when everyone agrees. Not so much at other times. The |
| 37 |
responsibility is with QA to build support among the developers, and |
| 38 |
I agree that the transparency goes a long way! |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
//Peter |
Archives