On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:29:28 +0300 Samuli Suominen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/04/14 11:28, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:00:19 +0300 > > Samuli Suominen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote: > >>> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being > >>> used as an offensive weapon. It's a stick to bludgeon others with. > >> Exactly. Anyone remembers what happened the last time this was > >> tried? > >> > >> [...] > > What does the previous QA team's actions have to do with this topic? > > It's the previous QA team's actions and mistakes we can learn from. > You know, to avoid repeating them. Indeed; though, to avoid repeating them we need knowledge codification, random mentions in one or another thread in an optional ML won't stick. The knowledge codification is already there, GLEP 48 covers this; in particular, "The QA team will also do their best to ensure all developer tools are in line with the current QA standards." applies. > >> Force is not hardly ever the correct answer. It might work in a > >> workplace, but not when people are contributing for free. > > In the workplace; people say "no", stand up and leave the room. > > That's reality only for small percentage of working people. > The majority will do as they are told, and don't even consider saying > "no" as that > would risk their job, and thus, salary, and the way you pay your > mortgage, your house, > and feed your family. If you say "yes" too often, you'll make a lot of deals that are in your disfavor; up to the point that the same would happen due to bankruptcy. And that's why people sometimes go sit on the edge of their chair... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
