| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:48 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> If there is a technical disagreement between a developer and QA and the |
| 4 |
> QA lead is confirmed by the council, that puts the council in a very |
| 5 |
> awquard position for an appeal. The council would either have to back |
| 6 |
> the QA lead, who they have confirmed, or back the developer who is |
| 7 |
> appealing. If the council backs the QA lead, the appeals process is |
| 8 |
> pointless, but if they back the developer, it makes their confirmation |
| 9 |
> of the qa lead questionable. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't buy this line of argument at all. In virtually every |
| 12 |
organization I'm aware of (corporations, non-profits, governments, |
| 13 |
courts, etc) the people at the top are elected, and anybody below them |
| 14 |
derives their authority from those at the top. That makes everybody |
| 15 |
accountable to the voters/shareholders/owners/whatever. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In virtually every organization I'm aware of, appeals are almost |
| 18 |
always rejected. That is true of courts, going over your boss's head, |
| 19 |
etc. That doesn't mean that there is no route of appeal - only that |
| 20 |
the courts at the bottom do their job correctly because they are |
| 21 |
accountable to the ones above them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives