coordination #163589
closed
[saga][epic] Enforce work silos and make QE engineers irreplaceable with more sophisticated manual test result review features
Added by okurz 7 days ago.
Updated 1 day ago.
Description
Motivation¶
Whereas #99303 defines ideas to scale up sustainably with more automation in our processes we can enforce work silos and make QE engineers irreplaceable with more sophisticated manual test result review features which helps in the daily work on short term, makes dashboards more complicated and helps for teams to grow further apart.
Ideas¶
- By building more features into https://github.com/openSUSE/qem-dashboard/ we can help QE engineers to become irreplaceable domain experts and not need to look into other similar solutions like smelt.suse.de to enfoster and grow existing work silos
Related issues
2 (2 open — 0 closed)
- Copied from coordination #99303: [saga][epic] Future improvements for SUSE Maintenance QA workflows with fully automated testing, approval and release added
- Parent task set to #159549
- Parent task deleted (
#159549)
Where does this ticket belong to? The sarcastic nature of the ticket and description tells me to close the ticket, please update it to actually reflect what is needed, and based on what we're trying to do as a team.
I understand your malcontent, but this isn't the way.
szarate wrote in #note-5:
Where does this ticket belong to?
It belongs to the subtickets, i.e. #163586 . I intend to reject it as soon as #163586 is resolved.
- Subtask deleted (
#159549)
- Status changed from New to Rejected
okurz wrote in #note-6:
szarate wrote in #note-5:
Where does this ticket belong to?
It belongs to the subtickets, i.e. #163586 . I intend to reject it as soon as #163586 is resolved.
Closing:
The sarcastic nature of the ticket and description tells me to close the ticket, as it does not align with our company values.
I understand your malcontent, but this isn't the way.
- Related to coordination #159549: [epic][qem-dashboard] Group blocked incidents to allow reviewers to focus on high prio incidents added
@szarate does that mean we should still work on #159549 or not? As I see #159549 actually enforcing the work silos and also supporting bad practices.
okurz wrote in #note-10:
@szarate does that mean we should still work on #159549 or not? As I see #159549 actually enforcing the work silos and also supporting bad practices.
It means that #163586 is still the top priority, as we spoke during last sync meeting, all my money is on #159549 - If you see it still as enforcing bad practices, I'd be happy to help you create a ticket that expresses the intent, which can help addressing the problem we have across the department.
But again, sarcasm at (this level), is out of our values as a project, and as a company.
Also available in: Atom
PDF