Alec Warner wrote: > > hmm? > > To be fair, I had a long discussion with this regarding when QA has the > authority to temporarily ban a developer.
Cool. > In the case where policy is missing, QA does not have a clear case > of authority there. It becomes a more murky area. I've tried to > very much encourage QA to both publish the policies they want to > enforce, and automate enforcement with better tooling (repoman or > otherwise). Being transparent and consistent in enforcement of > policy goes a long way for getting developers on your side. Absolutely. > So in short, while one could read that passage as you did, I don't > think that is their intention. To be clear, I don't think so either. Rich Freeman wrote: > I was really happy to see a public notice of meeting and a published > summary. Yes, me too! I still think it seems like QA could essentially introduce arbitrary new policies and 2 weeks later be expected to effect them. Fine when everyone agrees. Not so much at other times. The responsibility is with QA to build support among the developers, and I agree that the transparency goes a long way! //Peter
