Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>]

On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 21:52 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:04:24AM -0400, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > I have enough grounds to believe that quality lead job is to facilitate
> > bug discovery and call upon developers to fix those bugs, because
> > quality control people are usually not developers and control quality
> > indirectly. 
> 
> I published the list of bugs that you implied we should keep secret so 
> that other developers could fix the bugs, not so I could fix them 
> myself.  Why are all my actions open to inconsistent criticisms?  You 
> seem to hold impossible standards.

In case that wasn't clear, I "implied" we should fix them, NOT keep them
secret. All I ask is that when there's a bug that needs to be fixed
urgently you have to attempt to get a developer to do this, to spread
the work and do it on time. And that a lesser number of open bugs be
selected as a metric of stability.

> 
> > Here me out, I never thought you'd embark on path of fixing
> > problems by yourself, 
> 
> By no means am I fixing problems by myself.  I haven't fixed most of the 
> bugs I've found myself, only a substantial minority that were quick 
> fixes between waiting for compilations to finish.

Well done.

> 
> > and I voted for you based not on your goals alone,
> > but also on the presumption that you'd collaborate with developers. I am
> > thinking now that I made a mistake.
> 
> This is completely baseless.  As I pointed out above, you're criticizing 
> an action that's collaborative while criticizing me for not being 
> cooperative generally.  Which is it?

Seth, I said in the first mail that 50 bugs is too much (and 70 is more
so), that's all. It wasn't even your decision, you said that yourself.
Then, I suggested that we don't compare this with what it "used to be"
because it's not a good measure (and I am part of this 'cause my unfixed
bugs are plentiful, so don't get me wrong). I also asked where is the
Prometheus discussion held, with a little sarcasm, and subsequently
objected to being called "indirect stakeholder." I guess one of the two
last things set you off, and you started attacking Distrowatch, then you
said something to the extent "I couldn't fix them all," or so I
understood, so I suggested that you shouldn't have had to. Then you said
discussion is not exclusive, which is good but post-factum. If you
announced this Prometheus discussion more openly from the beginning this
argument would end very quickly, that's what you should try more often
in the future.  I continue to be on your side, just use methods that are
more appropriate.

> 
> > 
> > Just so you appreciate the impact of Distrowatch, look at this:
> > http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?action=find&find=distrowatch
> > Eight of our developers mention Distrowatch as a resource of
> > information, including our leader, and some came to SMGL via this site.
> > Whatever you think of it, don't dismiss its value even if you personally
> > don't see any.
> 
> I didn't say it was useless.  I said that our personally clicking 
> distrowatch is futile because the substantial number of actual clicks 
> come from distrowatch visitors, not our developers. (and I think hits 
> per day may actually be validated via tricks like checking referrers to 
> make sure they hit the page via a valid link and not a bot).

I didn't say we should click more often, that's stupid. We should
improve our rating that fell down twice or thrice with methods that are
more productive and sustain the rating longer, such as announcements,
articles, whatever. That's what our PR lead is going to to.

> 
> I don't think developers need to be wasting their time visiting 
> distrowatch just to inflate an arbitrary number very ineffectively.  If 
> we're going to be effective, we need to pick an effective method.

Neither do I.

> 
> I also said the best way right now to increase distrowatch coverage was 
> by releasing isos and implied that the lack of hits per day is most 
> likely highly related to the lack of recent iso releases, while you were 
> implying, in my estimation, that our grimoire bugs had a lot to do with 

I'm convinced that they do have a lot to do with our rating, on
Distrowatch or elsewhere. That's why you want to increate the quality,
don't you? You asked to be QA team lead yourself.

> it.  While both may contribute, I think the lion's share is from ISO 
> releases.  I agree that grimoire bugs have something to do with it, 
> which is why I volunteered to help take them on.  Nobody was doing QA 
> work, while three people were working on an ISO.

Exactly, and that's why I voted for you.

> 
> > 
> > And finally, I'd appreciate if you don't use profanity on the list.
> 
> I recognize no religions or temples to censor my speech.

I used these words too, but not in public. It's called hygiene of the
language. Do you brush your teeth and comb your hair? Might want to
watch your mouth as well. Also, if you're that sensitive, please
recognize my sensitivity to half-hearted collaboration and aversity to
being labeled "indirect stakeholder." Then we'll have a deal.

Sergey.