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
