(Apologies for the lag, life has been a little crazy of late; I've been trying to escape from the computer when not actually needing to be in front of it :) On 7/6/07, Karsten Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 16:19 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > on the plus side: > * it is now rawhide everywhere, so people can find information about it. Yay! > > on the negative side: > * AFAICT, still no information about why people should actually use > rawhide, or how they might use it. So the naming work is for naught. > > on the very negative side: > * I tried to edit a bug today to make it more useful by correcting the > out of date information in it. I'm now told that to make the bug more > useful, I have to create a gpg key and sign the CLA. This was all on the Wiki? Because there aren't any such requirements on bugzilla.redhat.com.
I was told in IRC that my Fedora account (non-bugzilla) needed a particular group, which appeared to be confirmed by: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/#head-69a2fdca9900f61c9b53d353b2bc5b09d58fdf70 At that point I decided I'd make a bigger impact discussing the problem here than ignoring the problem, registering, and fixing only the one bug.
> Needless to say, the bug is still useless and will remain that way for > the foreseeable future. > > Generally, I'm just shocked that Fedora seems to attach so little > significance to an area where we should be kicking the crap out of > proprietary operating systems, and where volunteers should be making > it substantially more cost-effective to produce software. Sorry, which is the area with little significance attached?
QA, really. The CLA is just one symptom of that; the lack of information about rawhide; the poor treatment of updates-testing users (things broken for many days, which discourages people from using updates-testing at all); the lack of usable definitions for severity/priority all jump out.
We have an ongoing problem with barriers to entry for Fedora. Legacy stuff + legal bits + lack of resources to fix stuff (compared to other perceived priorities). As a tie-guy-to-be, I thought you'd understand the murky waters around e.g. the CLA ... why it has to be, why it's hard to find good ways to sign it, etc.
I really mostly wasn't thinking about the CLA at all, except inasmuch as I can't see any sane way why it should be required for QA work, since nothing I do in QA can possibly be copyrightable. But yes, in my copious spare time I'm trying to figure out how the CLA can be simplified and applied to fewer things. :)
Fortunately, we do have this that I worked out with Mark Webbink: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/CLAAcceptanceHierarchies Bottom line -- GPG signing required for work that goes directly into a package we ship. So, going onto the Wiki can be done with a click-through CLA. Which is why we are waiting for the next Moin release to implement ... any day now ...
Hrm. Mind if I talk to Mark about slotting Bugzilla into that somewhere? (ideally 'none', but perhaps in the wiki level.) Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
