On 30-01-2011 21:00:24 -0500, Dane Smith wrote: > > Again, I strongly object to this plan. Instead: > > > > To become a QA member, one must be a current developer, for at least 6 > > months, and one must go through a quiz. The quiz is then evaluated by > > the QA lead or a replacing member from the QA team, in the same way as > > recruiters evaluate new developers. The outcome of the evaluation is > > signed by the QA lead. In case of decline of a new member after the > > evalation, the QA lead must be able to provide a written argumentation > > of this decline, which can be requested by said member or by devrel. If > > providing such argumentation is impossible within a week after > > evaluation, QA must accept said member to the QA team. > > I whole-heartedly disagree with this. First off, the "line in the sand" > concept is completely unnecessary in this case. It barely makes sense > when it's used on a massive scale (can't drink until 21 in the US), and > it only makes sense there because people could not feasibly be evaluated > on an individual basis. In this case, quite clearly they can. Either > they have the skills and the motivation, or they don't. Some x month > line in the sand makes no difference at all and merely slows people down > who would like to help and contribute. We have enough hurdles around > here. Why add more?
Because some members show different behaviour than before/during recruiting. > The same can be said for the quiz. If the current QA lead would like to > decide that way, it should be up to him. But on the whole it should be > the QA leads decision. Personally I think the idea is kind of crazy, and > seems like a waste of time. Evaluation can be done quite easily on a > case by case basis. Why bother with quizzes? I guess you also prefer the council members chosing their own replacements then, do you? If QA were just a normal team like most others, I couldn't care less about how they are chosen and who is their lead. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
