Mark Anderson wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I didn't think of this during the original discussions on newsgroup
> > renaming, but suddenly I can imagine the new ".quality" group getting
> > posts like:
> >
> > "Netscape is such poor quality!!!"
> >
> > How about ".quality-testing"? Totally unambiguous, and I can't think of
> > any erroneous interpretations.
>
> Quality testing sounds so grammatically dubious.
In what way? Is quality not something that can be tested?
> Why not
> ".quality-assurance"? (And if we get posts from people attempting to be
> assured that we have quality, it's their own damn fault. :) )
Well, it's their own damn fault when they post to n.p.m.qa.general with
NS4.7 questions'n'answers too (basic netiquette says to read existing
posts in the group before asking a question) but it's still the mozilla
developers who suffer.
That said, I don't disagree that quality-assurance is just as good of a
name. -testing has the advantage of being shorter and marginally clearer
(that is, it takes an even higher level of stupidity to misunderstand
it) but I have no objections to -assurance.
Stuart.
