Hi Paul, all
Seeing if it can break something requires a lot of experience with Koha code source. When I QA code from BibLibre, I'm not biaised because it comes from BibLibre. Are you sure? Just looking at your statement from outside BibLibre, I would say that there could be conflicting interests here.. (With all due respect !)
Should we, then, give a grant to some specific, experienced & trustable ppl to QA ? Isn't that already the case? Or do you feel that we should extend the QA team? If we dissolve it on the other hand and grant a new QA privilege to say 15 developers, it may just be a little too optional/non-committal. Would that really be more productive?
For example, the eclipse foundation has "contributors" and "committers". From first glance, I suspect that we compare two non-similar workflows.
Marcel