rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Jun 9 07:10:55 UTC 2010
On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Luke Macken wrote:
>>> By "success" I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
>>> implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as
>>> expected, and the results show increased community engagement.
>> This definition of "success" does not match mine nor the one you'll find in
>> a dictionary. So your terminology is misleading.
> Really, Kevin? We're digressing to a dictionary battle?
> Fine, I'll play. First definition in the dictionary: "an event that
> accomplishes its intended purpose".
Exactly. Your definition differs from Kevin's (and mine).
> ...which is exactly what I meant to being with.
To me, your definition of success is "compliance with *your* process".
Whether this process is suitable to improve package quality, whether the
technical system behind it is a good approach and whether your approach
actually improves package quality or is mere bureaucray is highly
That said, all you demonstrated is your system not being entirely
broken, but I don't see any "success" related to QA in your statistic.
More information about the devel