On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Not really, because my opinion that devrel shouldn't be involved is not > > automatically turned into reality (much to my regret). I'm trying to > > supply evidence why this should stay between QA and infra. > > > >> at any rate, you're proposing giving the control to the QA team which > >> has no guidelines or processes outlined, let alone the manpower. > >> devrel has all of these. > > > > And devrel is the wrong group to handle it, so QA needs to come up with > > some guidelines. > > I tend to agree with Donnie on this partially. Devrel's main focus isn't > the QA of the tree, its dealing with developers.
exactly, which is what i said originally QA flags developers as bad apples and tells devrel to punish them > If QA has done all it can to help improve someone or deal with their > problems, then devrel can take over it. Give the power to the right > people so they can do the right kind of work and decisions. i also noted this originally ... QA team tells dev what they've done wrong and to plzfixkthx. if dev is unresponsive/continues to produce garbage, then QA team informs devrel to clean up said dev. -mike -- [email protected] mailing list
