On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 18:51 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > (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 :) Let me know how that works out. ;-) (Myself, I just combine - right now I'm making plum jam, cooking dinner for the family, cleaning the kitchen, making a blessed cup of coffee, and my mind is thinking and writing.) > 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 On the face of it, it seems broken to require anything more than a plain ol' bugzilla account to file and comment on bugs, and close any you filed. I insist on the need for the account so there is a way to contact a reporter - email address thereby being the sole requirement. > 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. Is there a list like this on the Wiki? Somewhere we can prioritize and account for shortfall. > 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. :) Not to sure about that. QA folks, for example, write content to Docs/Beats, and that becomes the release notes. What about email posting? I may be crazy, but I like the idea that what I am writing here can be picked up by someone and written into Fedora Weekly News without worrying about redistribution rights. > > 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.) Go right ahead ... but ... I almost added bugzilla to the top category, and didn't for a couple of reasons. One is the mixed-use bugzilla we have -- I'm not sure if one can give a general account that would have the permissions we want for Fedora bugs. Cf. to anyone being able to file bugs against Red Hat products. We can't force a click-through CLA for Fedora in front of someone who is filing bugs for Red Hat products. So how to gather bugzilla into the click-through category like the Wiki? There is a bit of specter at bugzilla.redhat.com that makes this hard to figure out. Maybe we can put a portal/wrapper at bugs.fedoraproject.org that says i) bugs filed through this wrapper are covered by ii) this click-through CLA. Or like the WikiLicense[1] that is on every edit, reminding the contributor of the CLA. Again, if there is value and reason, which is still a moot point ... Somewhere in here we might find it is more valuable to have a stand-alone Fedora bug tracking because of these kind of community issues. - Karsten [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiLicense -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
