On 03/18/2011 05:04 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 20:25 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> Could you please add a _little bit_ of punctuation to that very long >> sentence above? > > Hum not following my English is not that good as most people are aware > of. > > If I I'm getting you right you want me rephrase clear it up and to break > it down for easier reading? > > Take 2. > > There was a recent topic raised on [1] with regards it was difficult to > find information how Fedora is governed. > > QA community has never voted on any QA board to handle any decision > making which kinda makes our community more or less self governed and > yet there have been cases where it has been mentioned that QA has > decided and QA has voted on various topics which may appear confusing to > outsiders and even our own community since we don't have any community > QA board > > We don't have anything on the QA page ( and most likely elsewhere ) that > explaining how QA is governed ( Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc. ) within > the QA community. ( Which should not come as a surprise since we don't > actually have any governs so to speak ) > > Some of of us know that it's most likely James that made that decision > and or Adam or some other Red Hat employee but to newcomers or people > generally unfamiliar to/with our community it may appear confusing. > > For example hows the board supposed to be able to clear that up to > people without us doing it first within the QA community? > > Is this better or worse or unclear? > > JBG > I assume QA = quality assurance. In the business where I came from, QA was NOT in the decision making management chain. It was a staff function that advised. That said, QA could, and did, report on whether software or a hardware/software deliverable was sufficiently error free per a QA plan in order to be released to the customer. They also served as the judge of whether or not a project was ready for the next step. They could be over-ridden by line management, but it was rare and in order for the company to keep its engineering certifications, QA functioned in a specific and well understood way per the standards prescribed by the certifying agencies. All that said, it would be good if there was a "wiring" diagram that shows the relationships of the various entities in Fedora and how they relate to each other. Even so, the way QA is functioning within Fedora appears, to me, to be moving in the direction the way most professional QA organizations function. -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
