| 1 |
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not |
| 4 |
> > automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to |
| 5 |
> > supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which |
| 8 |
> >> has no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. |
| 9 |
> >> devrel has all of these. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > And devrel is the wrong group to handle it, so QA needs to come up with |
| 12 |
> > some guidelines. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I tend to agree with Donnie on this partially. Devrel's main focus isn't |
| 15 |
> the QA of the tree, its dealing with developers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
exactly, which is what i said originally |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
QA flags developers as bad apples and tells devrel to punish them |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If QA has done all it can to help improve someone or deal with their |
| 22 |
> problems, then devrel can take over it. Give the power to the right |
| 23 |
> people so they can do the right kind of work and decisions. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
i also noted this originally ... QA team tells dev what they've done wrong and |
| 26 |
to plzfixkthx. if dev is unresponsive/continues to produce garbage, then QA |
| 27 |
team informs devrel to clean up said dev. |
| 28 |
-mike |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives