| 1 |
On 11/1/13 1:27 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I propose that the Council disband the current QA team, and call for |
| 3 |
>> interested developers to form a new one in its place. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> In its current state, the QA project (excluding subprojects) is |
| 6 |
>> moribund, and all attempts to address the problem with the team directly |
| 7 |
>> have failed. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I know this isn't officially required but, SECONDED. And a big thanks |
| 10 |
> to Kensington for standing up and saying something. You are not alone. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
+1 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd advise for extra care with Council doing things like that. I think I |
| 15 |
see the situation we're in, and I think some action is warranted. When |
| 16 |
we get to specifics though, some questions arise: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
a) Who would be the lead of that new QA project? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
b) Given special role of QA, how to address having some bar on who can |
| 21 |
and who can't be a member of QA team at given moment? Or should there be |
| 22 |
some "levels" like in security team, indicating what actions can and |
| 23 |
can't be done on behalf of the QA team? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
c) Any comments on <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0048.html>? |
| 26 |
Especially these: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- "The QA team is directed by a lead, chosen yearly by private or public |
| 29 |
election among the members of the team." |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- "The QA team lead must approve developers who would like to join the |
| 32 |
project." |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Paweł |
Archives