[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Inconsistent spelling of QT and GNOME

Interesting discussion.

* Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> [011104 15:08]:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:39:25PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > On 04/11/01, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > Indeed. Historically, debian-qa have been the people who deal with
> > > orphaned packages - there are moves to make the BTS-generated traffic
> > Well, but not only time is changing and I think it's time that debian-qa
> > changes a bit moving away from the maintaince of orphaned packages to
> > take care of QA issues.
> It seems that part of the problem with this has been that most of what
> would be done by -qa has actually happened on -devel or the ports lists
> - there is not that much that is specifically the buisness of -qa.

This is a good observation, Mark.

Christian, while the definitions of -qa and -devel and such you have
taken are clear to you, it seems that the history behind what has
traditionally been done on these lists has a life of it's own.  Hanging
out on these lists has helped me understand the different roles. 

I agree that in many organizations that QA has broader responsibilites,
but the QA department in any particular organization may or may not be
the right place to reach the sometimes codified goals of QA.  It depends
on the people involved and how the organization functions.

I like that you brought up this issue here.

> > > Fair enough; there seems to be general agreement that filing wishlist
> > > bug reports would be a sensible initial approach (though there seems
> > > to be some disagreement as to who should do it, and whether -devel
> > Well, I wouldn't say that there's a agreement about this especially
> > since this wouldn't ensure that really all packages get fixed and either
> > all packages should be fixed or none.

Christian, agreement can be passive or active.  I feel there certainly
is passive agreement.

I feel your assumption that this wouldn't ensure things getting fixed
may be flawed.  Whether individual package maintainers follow through or
not can and should be taken up on an individual basis.  Whether all the
bugs get filed or not is up to you or whoever will be filing them.  It's
sometimes difficult to seperate the action/responsibilty of a group from
it's individuals.

Would adding a new label to the bug tracking system to help track these
help you in filing them and keeping track of who has followed through
and who hasn't?

> It strikes me that if you want to get general agreement on stuff then
> -devel (or in this case the -kde and -gtk-gnome lists) is the place to
> go.  -qa doesn't seem particularly relevant in that quality isn't an
> oddment that ought to get hidden away from general view.
> -- 
> "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Mark, I agree about the course of action.  

I also feel (to paraphrase) Christian's point that a "voice" concerning
QA that also carries some weight is a good one.  This would bring this
out into the open rather than hide it, establishing a new identity.
It's sometimes a give and take situation between developers and QA/users
perspective.  Much has been done for gathering collective input from
developers and policy, but less so within the various Debian functions
to gather and use input from "very much less experienced
developer/users" and (gasp) even non-technical users.  

If Debian is increasingly successful, there will be more and more of
these non-techies interested in Debian.  QA may be a good place to
establish more of a voice for this.

-- Grant Bowman                                   <grantbow@svpal.org>

Reply to: