Duncan posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:30:41 -0700:
> The idea in either case is to minimize the possibility of something > occurring without enough of a majority opinion to make the decision look > arbitrary or subject to immediate reversal upon the whims of a single QA > team member, without making it impotent in certain cases due to a > requirement for a unanimous decision. Reason in the middle ground? Argh! Make that: The idea in either case is to minimize the possibility of something occurring without enough of a majority opinion, SUCH THAT the decision looks arbitrary... IOW, it looks arbitrary if the majority is only a single person. Increasing the necessary majority decreases the appearance of arbitrariness. As such, given a suitable super-majority requirement, giving the QA team enough authority to be effective shouldn't be an issue, because all sides should be comfortable that the decision isn't in fact arbitrary, nor could it be, due to the super-majority requirement. Of course, if the QA team ends up being only a couple people... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
