Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 16:51:53
Message-Id: 20140511185146.36e09a2d@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 by Tom Wijsman
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

Replies