Good to hear that it's goin on. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to join
the unconferemce because I find no sponsor fot the travel costs. I 'm
looking forward to the results and will step in early Febuar after the
Oxfordt Meeting.
Regards
Nils
Am 04.01.12 18:34, schrieb Michelle Ziegmann:
The board has been discussing this issue quite a bit - expect an
update on plans soon from Olaf or Mara. And yes, it will definitely be
discussed at the unconference as well.
Happy new year to you!
Michelle
On 1/2/12 6:56 AM, Nils Birnbaum wrote:
Happy New Year Matterhorn Folks!
Just sitting at home and enjoing the last day's of the chrismas
season holidays I asked myselfe when we would start with my favorit
topic? :-) Or is it part of the unconference?
Regards
Nils
Am 09.11.2011 um 07:13 schrieb Tobias Wunden:
Hi Stephen,
I was hoping that some more people would give their opinion, this is
why I held back on an immediate response.
1. QA is a very important part of the Opencast Matterhorn value
proposition, so it's great to see an offer of investment in this area.
I wholeheartedly agree.
2. While recognizing that Entwine is taking the initiative here, it's
conceivable that in the future other commercial partners may also
offer
QA resources or get involved in various ways. So I think it would be
most appropriate to define a community process with specific roles,
and
that Entwine offers people and expertise to contribute to that
process,
rather than being a "co-owner" in some way of the QA function.
Entwine doesn't wan to own the QA process, but we are certainly
willing to lead the way to getting to a stage where there is a
dfined process in place that has been proven to work.
So for example if there's a "QA Lead" role and an Entwine member
carries out
that function, then Entwine is supporting the community function of QA
Lead, rather than owning the QA Lead function (in a corporate
sense). I
think this is largely consistent with what Andy suggests below, but
just
want to make my viewpoint clear.
Total agreement here as well. We are not looking to own anything
here (especially given that QA is something that usually nobody
wants to be owning). It just seems that at the current state, the
project needs more defintion around QA, while there is hesitation to
invest into it. People still prefer to invest into "features",
mostly because this is much easier to sell to your donors (and more
fun). However, we think that overall robustness ist the main feature
that you want on this kind of software, and we feel that this
feature can be secured by working on, facilitating and securing the
QA process.
Tobias
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
