On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Luke Macken wrote: >>> By "success" I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting, >>> implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as >>> expected, and the results show increased community engagement. >> >> This definition of "success" does not match mine nor the one you'll find in >> a dictionary. So your terminology is misleading. > > Really, Kevin? We're digressing to a dictionary battle? > > Fine, I'll play. First definition in the dictionary[0]: "an event that > accomplishes its intended purpose". Exactly. Your definition differs from Kevin's (and mine). > ...which is exactly what I meant to being with. To me, your definition of success is "compliance with *your* process". Whether this process is suitable to improve package quality, whether the technical system behind it is a good approach and whether your approach actually improves package quality or is mere bureaucray is highly questionable. That said, all you demonstrated is your system not being entirely broken, but I don't see any "success" related to QA in your statistic. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
