On 11/10/2010 09:06 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > There was some reorganization done in QA, and James is responsible for > much of that, as well as of the growth after he took a more Fedora > centric role within QA. > > I would say it is accurate that James is responsible for much of the > growth within Red Hat on Fedora QA, and not that it is because Will > "sold" AutoQA to anyone. Regardless of how things came to be James works has been extremely valuable and continues to be so. > I was not directly involved in hiring for that position, so I couldn't > even begin to say whether he was considered or not. I knew of the > opening, I thought Adam would be a great fit for it, encouraged the > folks who were involved in hiring, and he has been incredibly valuable > for us since being hired. > Agreed > I'm not trying to take credit away from you, just pointing out that > these good things are happening, and Red Hat is a major part of this reason. > As it we do also from the community side slowly but surely ;) > I disagree. When I bootstrapped triaging and helped establish the > initial set of criteria for what a blocker actually is around Fedora 10 > (or 11), that was clearly the intention. John Poelstra and James Laska > and Adam Williamson (and all of the many many community volunteers) have > taken it from there and have improved upon it to what we have today, > where we released Fedora 14 on time. > I'm actually speaking pre F10 era here. > Note, this is different from the "how do we deal with old bugs" > triaging, which I've not been involved with, and probably could use some > constructive suggestions for improvement (but is still better than > leaving old bugs open forever, which is what we did before). I'm not sure what this old bug problem is supposed to be i thought the triage concious was to close unless maintainer wanted to keep it open which he would then move to non EOL release himself either by changing release or cc to current similar/same bug. The general used to be the maintainer always has the final saying on his components regardless of reporters/triagers will. The underlying problem I'm referring to myself is the lack of response from maintainers which causes a big frustration amongst ( new ) reporters especially completely ignored through release cycle EOL bugs ( we are talking about up to 13 months here ) . This causes regular reporters outburst in the community followed by some curses and we loose valuable community members. My gut feeling is telling me we have started to sacrifice quality of package and it's maintainer for quantity of packages and maintainers Actually this problem is 2 sided We need to improve maintainers communication ( no response ) with reporters and we need to improve reporters response to maintainers ( needinfo ). The triage way has proven not to work ( stock response later automatic response ). stamped tried and tested... JBG _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
