Re[2]: [PEAR-QA] Documentation..

Hello Arnaud, >> My proposes: >> - short and descriptive essay about "what is QA here" (highest >> priority); AL> A draft was worked on in Frankfurt at the phpconf, which can be found AL> here [1] and for which you are more than welcome to comment. AL> It explains what QA will do. Again. I must pressure. "short and descriptive essay" Is it too much what I ask? >> - weekly based QA reports (highest priority); AL> We'll give that some thought, at the moment the work done isn't so AL> astounding as to require it though. When how can you call that QA? I must have misunderstood the meaning of QA word in common sence with your position, but you can't describe your POV. To me QA does nothing, wants to control a lot and don't want to be controlled too. I propose to make QA a status - not a privilege. Status can be assigned only after a person contributed a great amount of time and energy to close or propose patches to QA tracker. QA members can't be elected. Especially by 7 votes result. =/ >> - tracker to handle QA requests (high priority); AL> What do you mean by QA request ? Well, if QA does nothing then there's no such thing as QA request. Then I don't know what is QA request. Maybe a request to work on QA issue? >> - assure dialog between users and developers productive, effective and >> easy (mainsteam activity); that means to improve relations between >> both, so nobody will be forced but can act without inner conflicts on >> the issues arised. That can make everybody more happy, than it is now. AL> Not sure about this one. Unsure about what? About happines? =) About dialog? Or about QA? >> - give users ability to vote (lowest priority) AL> On ? Name'em all, I'll cross out redundant. AL> As a side note I'm only expressing *my* opinion and not that of the QA AL> team :) Well, to tell the truth I haven't noticed any opinion in your letter. =/ Sorry. t --