> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:03 PM > > 'Ordinary' qa people like me need to feel that they have a > direct influence on priorities to make the effort worthwhile. > For example, some time ago I floated the idea of 'minimum > acceptable functionality' as a way of distinguishing the > importance of certain bugs for fixing within, let's say, the > next two releases. There are no doubt a million other ways to > do it, but it seems to me that qa team members need to have > the authority to set the target deadline for a small > proportion of issues which are important to end users but > not 'sexy' coding tasks for the developers, even if the > developers then set them back. Because this is not available, > it may be that many qa project people, like me, soon become > so disenchanted with the amount of effort for almost no > result that they end up just watching the correspondence on > this distribution list and not doing any work.
I absolutely agree with you - seeing "Resolved - FIXED" in issue that you filed or QAed is terrific motivator. Not seeing that for 2-3 year old problems is pain. 3 month ago I have suggested (in [qa-dev] list) a mechanism to remedy that - QA members should get some reward for certain amount of work for the project (that is, certain number of good quality issues confirmed or resolved). And that reward should be the right to get IssueYYYYY fixed in next release. Obviously there will be some exceptions where amount of work for IssueYYYYY is just too big, but in such cases developers should provide clear explanation of that. My idea did not generate any interest from developers. Since then I am just campaigning for votes for issues that I feel are important. That seems to work. WBR, Kirill Palagin. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
