1 |
Il giorno dom, 23/01/2011 alle 10.00 +0100, Torsten Veller ha scritto: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The current "QA team's role and purpose" (GLEP 48) always talks about |
4 |
> the QA TEAM -- and I think this is good: QA needs a leader who can |
5 |
> build |
6 |
> a team IMHO. |
7 |
|
8 |
I'd be all for not having to specify so much the presence of the QA |
9 |
lead, but the problem lies in what the past year taught us: devrel will |
10 |
refuse to cooperate to anybody on the QA team but the lead. |
11 |
|
12 |
With "cooperate" here I don't only mean "listen to the requests for |
13 |
suspension"; devrel refused to keep the team as a whole in the loop of |
14 |
pending requests, as well as ignoring any evidence/suggestion coming |
15 |
from single team members. |
16 |
|
17 |
Which is why they "force" us to actually specify a lead in our very |
18 |
definition. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
> "the lead will be held responsible for their actions" |
22 |
> I think this can be dropped: the team is responsible for its actions |
23 |
> anyway |
24 |
> (whatever that means) and the lead will be replaced soon too. |
25 |
|
26 |
It's a matter of bringing some balance in the game; if we drop the four |
27 |
months rule, one could expect that the lead could call in his cronies |
28 |
just to take over QA. By forcing a lead to take direct responsibility |
29 |
for the people he or she let join the team. |
30 |
|
31 |
Maybe I should specify it better, but it was intended as implicitly not |
32 |
making the lead be directly responsible for the members that were on the |
33 |
team _before_. |
34 |
|
35 |
> "be ascribed to bona-fide mistake" -- |
36 |
> how can we evaluate this? |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Do you think this rule would have been used in the past? |
39 |
|
40 |
This would be easy to pass under the "it's just common sense" idea, but |
41 |
I wanted to have it in anyway. If a developer ends up breaking the tree |
42 |
by simply not thinking about the effects of his or her action, that's |
43 |
bad, but it's one thing. |
44 |
|
45 |
When a developer knows very well what his or her actions imply but still |
46 |
applies them without caring about the repercussions, that cannot be |
47 |
ascribed to bona-fide. |
48 |
|
49 |
As an example, think about a developer committing a non-masked package, |
50 |
the installation of which prevents Portage from completing its tasks |
51 |
correctly. By default it's just a mistake, but if said developer |
52 |
actually provided the fix beforehand to the Portage team but then didn't |
53 |
wait for it to be deployed before committing the package, then it cannot |
54 |
be a mistake in good faith. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
58 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |