Luke Macken said the following on 01/02/2008 06:25 PM Pacific Time:
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?
This seems like a good idea. How successful have the "QA Beats" been?
john
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
