1 |
On Sun, 11 May 2014 16:14:20 +0200 |
2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> 4) explicitly choose not to bitch at all or escalate to ComRel; |
5 |
|
6 |
What does that mean? Does it ever happen to you that you think "choosing |
7 |
to bitch" is the right solution? And what is "escalating to ComRel"? It |
8 |
sounds painfully like any ComRel (re)solution would result in people |
9 |
getting booted from the project or severely restricted in volunteering |
10 |
their work, if not simply unwilling to do so under technically imposed |
11 |
restrictions (from QA or the Council). |
12 |
|
13 |
> ... but in response I get ... |
14 |
|
15 |
[lots of negative feedback] |
16 |
|
17 |
> 14) "TomWij is improving qa, didn't you notice? ;)". |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Do people really expect QA to be communicative, be motivated and work? |
20 |
|
21 |
Of course we do, but are you sure you're tackling this problem the |
22 |
right way? I haven't looked into this, but from your quotations and |
23 |
from random comments on IRC I get the sure feeling you are perhaps |
24 |
pushing people too hard, or at the least rubbing them the wrong way. |
25 |
There is no hierarchy that puts QA above developers - you work with |
26 |
volunteers and they are all trying their best to get things fixed, even |
27 |
when this isn't immediately obvious to you or when the best solution |
28 |
doesn't immediately present itself. And when you decide to force issues |
29 |
through policies, you find that you don't actually have the resources |
30 |
to do that, unless you are prepared to drive out the volunteers you |
31 |
expected to start "fixing" things. Are matters of "policy" the carrot |
32 |
or the stick? |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
jer |