| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:01:09AM -0800, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/13/13 6:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Here is my personal sense of the problems I've seen: |
| 4 |
> > 1. Complaints that QA is overbearing by devs in general. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> My personal experience doesn't confirm this, but I do acknowledge that |
| 7 |
> this may be the case and that sometimes there is an impression of that |
| 8 |
> or more. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
My experience also does not confirm this. In fact, I have seen the |
| 11 |
opposite most of the time -- you approach QA with a possible issue and |
| 12 |
nothing is done. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > 2. Complaints that QA is ignored. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> +1 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Maybe so, I would have to think about this. Again, my main concern is |
| 19 |
that qa has been basically dead for years now. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > 3. Complaints that QA has not been backed up by the Council, being |
| 22 |
> > reversed on appeal excessively. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'm not aware of almost any reversals - still, I do agree that sounds |
| 25 |
> like a problem. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I haven't seen any QA decisions appealed to the council in years, so I |
| 28 |
don't know where these complaints came from. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> > 4. Complaints that QA is too closed. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> +1 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I think a better choice of words here, again, goes back to qa being |
| 35 |
inactive. Because they have been inactive, they haven't been accepting |
| 36 |
new members. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > I think the solution is therefore to give QA a mandate. The council |
| 39 |
> > has a mandate because it is elected by the developer community and is |
| 40 |
> > accountable to them annually. As such the council can confirm the |
| 41 |
> > lead of QA and confer their mandate upon them. In doing so the |
| 42 |
> > council and QA will be structurally aligned, and the council can be |
| 43 |
> > held accountable for failing to properly support the lead that they |
| 44 |
> > themselves confirmed. That said, the team should be self-governing to |
| 45 |
> > the greatest extent possible so the team will be given the opportunity |
| 46 |
> > of recommending a lead to the council. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I'm in favor of giving this a try. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I thought this might be ok, but the more I think about it, there are |
| 51 |
definitely issues with it, so I am not comfortable with it. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
If there is a technical disagreement between a developer and QA and the |
| 54 |
QA lead is confirmed by the council, that puts the council in a very |
| 55 |
awquard position for an appeal. The council would either have to back |
| 56 |
the QA lead, who they have confirmed, or back the developer who is |
| 57 |
appealing. If the council backs the QA lead, the appeals process is |
| 58 |
pointless, but if they back the developer, it makes their confirmation |
| 59 |
of the qa lead questionable. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
William |
Archives