[gentoo-qa] Reiterating my vote of no confidence on Mark Loeser as QA lead

[gentoo-qa] Reiterating my vote of no confidence on Mark Loeser as QA lead

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]

Given that

 - Mike Frysinger already insisted on me not to discussing these things
in the privacy of the qa@gentoo.org alias no matter the situation;
 - I cannot make public the whole context of the situation, given that
is being currently discussed on private aliases;
 - I feel it is important for me to point out _right away_ about this

I'm going to express once again my vote of no confidence. Mark has been
expressing his will to lead QA, but seems to be failing at basic leading
tasks such as making sure that the team actually exists (how many people
actually responded to my roll call, compared to what actually the
project enlists?). In particular, he failed to even notify the rest of
the team about important developments in a QA-critical devrel case, the
resolution of which, from the current outlook, will cause further
workload on the (already strained) QA team.

I don't care who else is proposing to lead QA, but I don't think Mark is
the right person for the job at this point in time.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-qa] Re: Reiterating my vote of no confidence on Mark Loeser as QA lead

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --]

Il giorno ven, 03/09/2010 alle 16.57 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò ha
scritto:
> In particular, he failed to even notify the rest of
> the team about important developments in a QA-critical devrel case,
> the
> resolution of which, from the current outlook, will cause further
> workload on the (already strained) QA team. 

Actually, at the current point in time (with developments that once
again cannot be made public — thus why I would have preferred for this
discussion not to be in public right away, but alas), I'll have to
retire my objection here.

I'd still like to see for a different action for what concerns QA
though, and also more involvement from the rest of the team members.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]