| 1 |
On 7/24/20 11:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Per the new process: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. QA communicates with the dev, asks nicely. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 2. If this fails, QA prepares a reasonable list of tasks to be done |
| 8 |
> (usually, fix a reasonable subset of the issues that provoked the QA |
| 9 |
> response). Of course, all guidance is provided as necessary and time |
| 10 |
> can be extended to account for developer's needs. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 3. If the developer shows effort to solve the problem, case closed. |
| 13 |
> On the other hand, if he refuses to cooperate, QA requests ComRel to |
| 14 |
> remove commit access. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> To be honest, I don't think we need '1 strike'. The whole point is that |
| 17 |
> if the developer understands the problem and wants to fix it, then |
| 18 |
> the problem is solved and there's no harm done. On the other hand, |
| 19 |
> if the developer doesn't want to cooperate, then I don't really |
| 20 |
> understand the point of a 'second chance' (to do what? figure out a way |
| 21 |
> not to follow standards and stay under the radar?) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
I like it. You changed straight retirement to losing one's commit |
| 24 |
access, I'd say it counts as the 1 strike. At least for me. You still |
| 25 |
retain your hardworked dev badge and can keep contributing more easily, |
| 26 |
but there's a burden of proof to provide to get your commit access back. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
What would be the process of getting it back by the way? Is it through |
| 29 |
Recruiters, QA or perhaps even Undertakers? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- juippis |
Archives