Subject:
|
Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:05:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> I do *NOT* recall this discussion.
> Was this on LUGNet? How long ago?
> Or, was it on "RTL"? (Does anyone still use "RTL"?)
I don't recall the discussion either, but that doesn't change my opinion
> 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...
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 quick and put out poorly made parts.
> 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...)
Believe me I know your pain, I'm a nuclear electrcian in the Navy. And
while the QA required in order for a 900 ton steel tube to be able to
submerge is a far cry from the Parts Tracker, the principle of *independant*
review is still the same.
> 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.
Amen to that. That is why it is incombent upon us reviewers to actually
review parts regularly.
-Orion
(make it billthefish and remove the obvious lettering to reply personally)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
| I thought about this issue while I was at work and I've decided to reverse my opinion on the matter. I feel that self-cert is OK as long as the user doing it is responsible and feels comfortable doing it. I probably won't start self-certifying my (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Self-Certification in 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
