Gentoo Archives: gentoo-qa

From: Dane Smith <c1pher@g.o>
To: gentoo-qa@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:14:04
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-qa] Early elections for new QA lead by Markos Chandras
On 05/24/11 10:44, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 24/05/2011 03:01 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote: >> On 05/23/11 12:22, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> On 21/05/2011 02:03 ¼¼, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >>>> Il giorno sab, 21/05/2011 alle 12.26 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto: >>>>> In light of recent events, our current lead has proofen he can't >>>>> control >>>>> himself in civil manner. It's not a behavior lead should have and >>>>> tarnishes the reputation for whole team. >>> >>>> Let it be on record that the reputation has been tarnished by QA members >>>> not following the very policy they are supposed to enforce. >>> >>>> But fine by me, I candiate me and scarabeus. >>> >>> 5 days and still no responses. May we should reconsider whether QA is >>> actually a "team" or just 4-5 individual members acting on their own? >>> >>> Regards, > >> I am following this issue and the bugs with Samuli and Arfrever etc. I >> just don't have anything to say. If we feel elections are necessary, I >> will participate. I think I am up to speed on all of what's been going >> on enough to voice my opinion intelligently. > >> As to whether or not we need elections early, I don't think we do. I >> personally consider this entire issue to be a giant pile of nonsense. We >> are arguing over ChangeLogs. I can think of so many more important >> important issues than that to find solutions to. We also can easily >> automate ChangeLog generation etc as long as we want to log everything, >> in which case this entire fiasco would be moot. (There are also other >> solutions to this set of problems we could consider.) However, at the >> moment, the only thing I see is a pissing match over the current policy. >> Both sides have technical merits. However, we are creating a very public >> scene with all of this, and that is something I down right do not >> approve of. When we want to get back to the technical issue itself, I >> will gladly voice my opinion. > >> I like to think that QA is a decent team of people. I've worked with >> most people on the team in the past couple months. Having said that, I >> don't think spending an hour or so every month or two making sure >> everyone is on the same page would be a bad idea. I also don't think >> formalizing some of the procedures etc would be a bad idea. There was >> one idea I thought was interesting on bug >> comment 51. None the >> less, that is all a topic for a separate thread. > >> Regards, > > Dane, > > I am not talking about elections. What I want to say is that QA is not a > team. We do not act as team but rather as individuals based on their own > will and temper. A team is supposed to have meetings, take team > decisions, discuss problems and find solutions that are voted by the > majority of the members. Please tell me. Who are the members of QA? Are > all the 14 people listed on the web page? Is this really the QA team? > Does the current situation reflect reality at all? The way I see it. QA > team is actually a group of people with elevated privileges. But > definitely not a team. > > Regards,
Markos, I am inclined to agree with you. As I mentioned, I don't think a team meeting once in a while would be a bad idea. I also like Thomas' proposed idea to cut anyone from the team who doesn't vote. A little bit more of team unity / direction would go a long way, especially given the nature of QA work. I think this would be a great topic for a new thread. Whoever gets to it first can start it. =) Regards, -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: