Subject:
|
Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:06:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
343 times
|
| |
|
|
> I thought we talked/discussed about self-certification
> in the parts tracker...
I do *NOT* recall this discussion.
Was this on LUGNet? How long ago?
Or, was it on "RTL"? (Does anyone still use "RTL"?)
Also, FWIW, I asked Steve, before I ever did any self-certification,
if he had any qualms about this. He said that if someone did an honest
review of their own files, he didn't have a problem with it.
(Steve, if you've changed your opinions about this since then,
please let me know. Thnx. --Franklin)
Personally, I do *NOT* like the new way of doing things,
because it's just too slow. I *much* prefer the timeliness
of the original way of getting files released, where *everyone*
was expected to review *every* file being considered for release,
and vote accordingly. But, they wanted to change things,
to install better safeguards, to ensure a higher standard
of quality for the files to be released. I certainly don't
begrudge "quality", but I cannot believe that we cannot
streamline this new process to make things, if not quite
as fast as originally, at least not as SLOW as things have
become...
To be fair, I must admit that my perceptions are probably colored
to some degree by the eight years of painful memories of being
a programmer/analyst for certain critical systems-level applications
used by every customer application in the Air Force, with the lowly
rank of Staff Sergeant (E-5), trying to get software released through
a "Q/A" process that was designed by sadistic, bureaucratic civil
servants more interested in building their own empires, and making
their rivals look bad, than in getting software to the field (i.e.,
supporting the customers). (Some day, ask me about the poor slob
who worked in the Pentagon and shot himself because he didn't get
my fixed software in time and he felt his career was over...)
In the end, I will do whatever I can (so long as it is "OK"
with the overseeing authorities) to expedite matters, but not
at the expense of quality. I am *NOT* willing to wait years
and years for files to be certified. But I'm equally unwilling
to release garbage.
And in my defense, let me point out that I can think of at least
two files of mine that were *this close* to being released
(one was "wtg. admin", the other was "cert.") that I re-submitted
(which WIPED OUT ALL "CERT." VOTES), just because I had discovered
flaws in them.
Thanks,
Franklin
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
| (...) I don't recall the discussion either, but that doesn't change my opinion (...) I think is new system is WAY better. Take a look at part 2598 and you'll see why I think this way. I'd rather have the process be slow and put out quality vice (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
| Hello! I thought we talked/discussed about self-certification in the parts tracker and came to the conclusion that self-certifications shouldn't be done. I noticed lateley that people submit parts to the parts tracker and self certify these right (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
