On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:24:49PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 1:14 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Unlike others that have posted here, I am less optimistic that we can
> > viably review and address all 13,000+ open bugs. We need to do
> > something drastic to clear the deck and start a process that insures
> > that we don't end up in this hole again. I think this huge backlog is
> > one of the biggest psychological de-motivators we have!
>
> I think you are right about clearing the deck as part of a re-launch
> for a triaging inititive.
>
> I also think that now that we have bodhi and the bugs interfaces to
> compliment what we have in bugzilla we have more to work with in terms
> of workflow flexibility for different groups of people
> (users,developers,triagers).
>
> Is there a way to possibly group bugs by SIG? So we can have specific
> triagers associated with SIGs. triagers as a group are a team, but
> then they also act as a liaison to each SIG which controls the
> packaging and development of related of packages. That way SIGs might
> advertise their triager role to new contributors as a starting point,
> but make a commitment to mentoring those people so that in 6 months
> those people move on to handling more advanced roles in the SIG such
> as package maintainer, and new triagers are found for the entry level
> position.
For those who haven't realized it yet: Fedora development does not scale.
This won't change until we move away from our 1-to-1/1-to-many package
maintainership model. IMO, we need groups of people maintaining groups of
packages. SIGs are a nice idea in theory, but have yet to be fully wielded.
A great example of this concept in action can be found within the gentoo
community[0]
AFAIK, we have a few groups of maintainers that handle bugs, ie:
{anaconda,kernel,gecko}-maint, but I'm unaware of any policy/procedures
behind them. Having these groups per-SIG would definitely help get more eyes
on our bugs, especially if we can allow for these sub-communities to thrive.
It also sounds like Will's QA Beats[1] have the same general idea behind it.
Instead of encapsulating people at the bugzilla/QA level, why not form these
groups at the distro-level, to allow for team-based: packaging, bug triaging,
QA, docs, etc.. ?
Thoughts?
luke
[0]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/
[1]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Beats
Attachment:
pgpnfy4X1N1c4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
