On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 04:59, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was the architect for Red Hat's enterprise QA team for a year, and yes,
> MeeGo's QA process is very far from mature compared to what they had. But
> doing pointless bureaucracy does not make it better.... far from it. It
> makes a lot of wasted manhours on things that add zero value to the actual
> quality of the final product. Really.
There's a general tone in the grumbling that "process" is the problem;
not necessarily "_this_ process".
Having a stronger architect steer that "we're having a process" is
good (it really wasn't clear before!); but can we move the
conversation on to the concrete problems & solutions? As David says:
* what're the problems which the process needs to solve;
* what are the problems with the current process (both in terms of
overhead and gaps from what it's supposed to be doing);
* how, practically, would people at the coal-face like to be
working?
* how close can the process get to meeting that desire?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council member
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
