Sad. I think this is a cultural issue which is mitigated in most professional organizations when agile is adopted. In my experience, waterfall pits testers against developers. In an agile environment that demarcation is blurred.
If I'm reading that report properly it appears as if the top of the list contains 'alpha' modules making this report even more disheartening for obvius reasons. I don't mean to push a particular development process methodology but this certainly does more harm to the qa/devoloper relationship that has already been damaged industry-wide by ill-conceived development practices. As somebody who has managed and worked on teams performing development, quality assurance and deployment of software products, I've seen first-hand how an antagonistic environment spirals downward and detrimentally affects morale and quality. Certainly its not the report-author's fault that there are some modules that may be considered poorly written, but nobody benefits from the report, unless one considers rubbing somebody's nose in poop a 'benefit'. ------Original Message------ From: chromatic Sender: To: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes Cc: perl-qa@perl.org Sent: Oct 23, 2008 13:33 Subject: Re: Public Humiliation and Kwalitee (was Re: Tested File-Find-Object-0.1.1 with Class::Accessor not installed) On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:25:05 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:37 am, chromatic wrote: > > I don't care about backchannel communication between other authors and > > CPAN Testers, but how can you blame Shlomi for thinking that public > > humiliation isn't a vital component of Kwalitee? There's prior art: > > > > http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame > That looks sorted by kwalitee and author. If we're shaming people, author > name shouldn't be a factor. Could it be by kwalitee and most recent > release date instead? Why should any part of QA include shaming people? My day job occasionally includes journalism (as in performing journalism and managing journalists). If I published something negative about someone without contacting that person first, I'd reap a whirlwind, and rightfully so. I assume that one of the goals of CPANTS is to improve the packaging of CPAN distributions. I have no desire to turn CPANTS into journalists, but the "Being a jerk is not productive" rule seems to apply here as well. The same goes for the "Oh yeah, we all did notice your fly was open last night when you were on stage accepting an award -- didn't you see the Flickr pictures this morning? HIL-AIR-EE-US!" rule. -- c Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
