1 |
On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:03:52 -0700 |
2 |
Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> - The QA team is an entirely brand new team. |
5 |
|
6 |
For completeness, we replace an old team; the QA project is nothing new. |
7 |
|
8 |
> - The team-members were put in place by the collective assent of |
9 |
> the Gentoo developer community. |
10 |
|
11 |
Indirectly, yes, as the community has chosen the Council; directly, it |
12 |
has been put in place by the Council (and 2 extra members by QA lead). |
13 |
|
14 |
> - No prior team was in place to spoonfeed them any |
15 |
> information. No batons to pass, no knowledge to transfer. |
16 |
> Processes, guidelines, and frameworks, rules of engagement, rules of |
17 |
> the road, etc. -- none of these existed for the QA team to orient |
18 |
> themselves into their new roles. |
19 |
|
20 |
Yes, there is a lack of knowledge codification; however, a small set of |
21 |
content can be found if you spend the time digging Council meeting |
22 |
logs and gentoo-qa ML material which is tedious to do. |
23 |
|
24 |
Given that, I'm under the impression that it went lost under the |
25 |
collective memory of the previous QA team; we've pinged them once or |
26 |
twice before, but haven't received a reply. |
27 |
|
28 |
At the moment I think we're past the hard part and have formed an idea; |
29 |
however, you can state such thing at any point in time so it has yet to |
30 |
be seen if that's really the case. |
31 |
|
32 |
> - The QA team members share a motivation. |
33 |
> - To constantly improve the Gentoo experience. |
34 |
|
35 |
Besides what I stated above, there is GLEP 48 which is a very valuable |
36 |
document; we try to hold ourselves to it as much as we can, as that is |
37 |
effectively written with what the Council directly wants from us (and |
38 |
in extension, what the community indirectly wants from us). |
39 |
|
40 |
> From this standpoint I'm seeing a ton of missed expectations. For |
41 |
> example (stated and implied by words, if not intention) within Gentoo: |
42 |
> |
43 |
> - *The QA team will fix everything. Right now. I meant, |
44 |
> yesterday, sorry.* |
45 |
|
46 |
s/will/might/ or s/will/should/; while some people on the QA team could |
47 |
be seen as bug fixing monkeys, we don't have the resources (mostly time) |
48 |
available to fix everything. Thus we can only fix and help where we can. |
49 |
|
50 |
> - *I am correct. The other party is wrong. It's so *obvious*. Why |
51 |
> isn't the QA team just addressing this already??* |
52 |
|
53 |
It's obvious to both parties and they both want their own solution. |
54 |
|
55 |
> - *Why does QA get cc'd all over the place on bugzilla?* |
56 |
|
57 |
QA team writes a Wiki entry for QA workflow, requested by the Council; |
58 |
among other things, it is meant to help with knowing how to contact QA |
59 |
and how QA works internally. As to avoid misunderstandings. |
60 |
|
61 |
CC-ing the QA team works better if there is a non controversial action |
62 |
to be taken. |
63 |
|
64 |
CC-ing the QA team works worse if there is a controversial action |
65 |
expected, or when there is looked for an action that could be |
66 |
controversial and hasn't ever been previous discussed by the community. |
67 |
|
68 |
It is to be noted that due to the controversial nature, this is often |
69 |
something that affects a larger share of the community. We thus want to |
70 |
hear and consider the community's view on it as well; and yes, that's |
71 |
what the earlier form of a pointer to gentoo-dev ML is all about. |
72 |
|
73 |
> - *Most of the things QA gets cc'd on have nothing to do with us.* |
74 |
|
75 |
Sometimes we get CC-ed on bugs that are in the maintainer's scope, on |
76 |
bugs that are personal and thus ComRel's scope, on bugs for which a |
77 |
clear policy exists and the maintainer already respects that policy, ... |
78 |
|
79 |
... which means that we have no action or decision to make there. |
80 |
|
81 |
> - *QA's job is to be the technical equivalent of ComRel.* |
82 |
|
83 |
It works in a similar way in terms of escalation (discuss with your |
84 |
peers and community first, then come to us), as well as working out |
85 |
discussions (acting as the third reader); only taking a technical |
86 |
action or decision when necessary, which is like ComRel not that common. |
87 |
|
88 |
> - *I'm not sure what the rest of the QA team thinks QA's job is?* |
89 |
|
90 |
That what is stated in GLEP 48. |
91 |
|
92 |
> - *I just want to do this part of QA.* |
93 |
|
94 |
That's entirely possible, nobody is forced to do certain parts. |
95 |
|
96 |
> - *Go raise this on the mailing lists, then council, then QA, if |
97 |
> you don't like it.* |
98 |
|
99 |
This should be clear given the above response to getting CC'ed. |
100 |
|
101 |
> - *QA is afraid of the community and wants to pacify everyone, |
102 |
> which makes them ineffective.* |
103 |
|
104 |
Where is this pacification? Is it that what is written in GLEP 48? |
105 |
|
106 |
> According to the Principle of |
107 |
> Humanity<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_humanity>, |
108 |
> I must ascribe the best possible intention to someone else's actions |
109 |
> and words. (Allow that others are driven by the same pure |
110 |
> motivations that drive me.) |
111 |
> |
112 |
> Which is related to my final observation: Gentoo developers, as a |
113 |
> whole and as individuals, share the intention *to improve the Gentoo |
114 |
> experience.* |
115 |
|
116 |
+1 |
117 |
|
118 |
> Finally, my request: |
119 |
> |
120 |
> 1. QA Team: please unite as a team, and figure out: |
121 |
> 1. Your ABI: |
122 |
> 1. What should people expect from you as a team and you as |
123 |
> individual members and doers on that team. |
124 |
|
125 |
GLEP 48 and the QA project page covers this, too much to summarize. |
126 |
|
127 |
> 2. Your API: |
128 |
> 1. How do people interact with you? When is it |
129 |
> appropriate? What is the chain of conversation to get to you? |
130 |
|
131 |
A Wiki that documents inquiries is being worked out by the QA team. |
132 |
|
133 |
> 3. Your customers: |
134 |
> 1. Your fellow developers. |
135 |
> 2. Us users. |
136 |
|
137 |
GLEP 48 covers this; indeed that, all developers and users. |
138 |
|
139 |
> 2. Gentoo Developer Team at Large: |
140 |
> 1. Please engage with the team that you guys have voiced into |
141 |
> place: 1. What responsibilities are appropriate for their shoulders? |
142 |
> 2. What authority is appropriate for them to be effective? |
143 |
|
144 |
That is what GLEP 48 is all about; I suggest people to read it again, |
145 |
suggesting corrections to the Gentoo Council if something in that |
146 |
document or what the QA team does is considered as inappropriate. |
147 |
|
148 |
-- |
149 |
With kind regards, |
150 |
|
151 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
152 |
Gentoo Developer |
153 |
|
154 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
155 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
156 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |