Criterion revision proposal: KDE default applications

[Gavin Flower]

On 15/12/13 17:41, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 22:27 -0500, Richard Ryniker wrote:
>
>> Has Fedora QA discussed how much effort they should or can invest in
>> organization and facilitation of others' test activities?  Direct
>> testing scales (approximately) linearly with number of people, but
>> education, organization, and leadership has the potential to scale at
>> greater multiples.
>>
>> |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>> | Great opportunity!  Become a Fedora test franchisee.  We'll provide   |
>> | directions, training, and all the materials you need, so you too can  |
>> | participate in this fast-moving field.  Gain experience, recruit      |
>> | others, become a Test Manager and train new Testers.  With 10 or      |
>> | more Testers, select your own Test Managers (each of whom will direct |
>> | at least five Testers) and advance to the Test Director level.  With  |
>> | five Test Managers, become a Test Executive...                        |
>> |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
> It's a cute idea, but I'm firmly of the opinion that stuff like this
> just doesn't _work_ in a project like Fedora. It's a cliche that geeks
> and engineers aren't huge fans of 'bureaucracy' and 'management', and
> this is pure management - drawing up a nice little hierarchical org
> chart and giving people job titles. Does the Test Executive get a corner
> office and a nice chair? :) I kid, but you get the point. I don't know
> of a F/OSS project which has a strict pyramid structure and cutesy job
> titles like this, and that's for a reason: the whole "F/OSS is a
> meritocracy / F/OSS is a do-ocracy" thing has its own problem of bias
> and so on, but it is a _fairly_ accurate reflection of how F/OSS work
> actually happens in one respect: it's mostly the case that the work is
> done by the people who show up, and there usually isn't some kind of
> obvious hierarchy like you describe. I mean, we don't have Test
> Executives and Test Directors and Testers inside the QA group, so why
> would we expect it to work for other groups to do it?
>
> The general idea of trying to get other groups more involved in testing
> their own stuff is obviously a good one, but I don't think that's the
> right approach to achieve it :)
I don't know...

Possibly charge a lot of money, give out fancy certificates, and ensure 
they have status and no real responsibilities!


Cheers,
Gavin