On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:05:48 +0000
Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Its not QAs decision, if the breakage was intentional or not. A
> single body, in this case, QA, cannot be both the police and the
> judicary.
>
> QA can and should be capable of finding wrongs, preventing further
> damage and causing the problem to get fixed. Thats damage limitaion.
> If preventing further damage involves revoking commit rights pending
> full investigation, thats fine by me.
> Determining the root cause, and determining long term prevention
> takes some investigation. QA may present evidence but its Devrels job
> to weigh the evidence and pass sentence.
Thank you for that. What in the recent past has perspired is that QA
has its place, after the fact, and that whoever feels to be in place to
deal out QA (and I think this has gone wrong a few times recently) is
required to:
1) state and/or explain policy specifically where it is being not
adhered to;
2) offer alternatives where policy is not adhered to.
There should be no way that someone in the QA team could be above
any /other/ developer. Anyone who is a developer is one, and anyone in
the QA team still has the same hierarchical place. If there are QA
issues, then logical and technical arguing should suffice - not some
perceived hierarchy derived from being in some team. Thank you.
jer
