On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 19:05 +0100, Thomas Schorpp wrote: > | If I understand you correctly, you would like to take what is currently > | known as the "Debian QA team" and let it undergo a metamorphosis, after > | which it will have the knowledge and routine to manage "quality" in > | Debian. Is my understanding correct? > > No, You are able to manage quality yet. I dont want to be a new > "manager" or some of these consultants or something like.
Ok, so you would like to work with the Debian QA Team and together with the team, undergo a metamorphosis, after which the team will have better knowledge and routine to manage quality in Debian. Is this understanding closer to your thoughts? > | The obvious answer > | is that "it depends on the process" -- but my question is if there can > | ever be *any* change in the current Debian process that does not divide > | the Debian developers. And if the developers are divided, what means are > | there to either rejoin them or expel those who are in opposition? The > | volunteer nature of the project, and the terms of joining it, mean that > | there are no strong means to do either. The project consists of > | autonomous individuals, and the incentive to do or not do something is > | on an individual level. > > Developers shouldn't have to "join", either they should not be > discriminated. Interesting research how to do this. I think you may have missed my point here. My point was that it may not be possible to do anything of what you have described without creating a situation where some developers will object. I'm not saying that would be a good thing or a bad thing. I'm simply saying that before embarking on such a task, it should be made clear what we are prepared to sacrifice to achieve it. By extension, then, we should think about ways to minimize the possibility of harm. My recipe for this would be to explain the benefits of this process, and listening to the comments about it. > | Another approach would be to implement a careful process that could be > | embraced by a supermajority in the project, and try to gradually improve > | it. This is the "nonintrusive quality management process". It doesn't > | take very much imagination to see that it would not differ much from the > | current QA work. > > I fear, You are thinking to far, lets start with analysises, > implementation stages in the Quality Circle are far away, under the > mentioned circumstances. On the contrary. I'm trying to figure out your goals -- a kind of meta-analysis to understand what the highest-level goal is. In the rest of the post, we seemed to agree more or less, so I left it out in order to help us focus on the above things. I'm concerned we may have a very different perception, so it may take a long time before we will learn to understand each other. Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
