Greg, your reasoning here seems to assume that if you as a sig recruit
somebody to QA, that person would then start doing things unrelated to
your sig within the QA group. That doesn't have to be the case. Most
of the groups within Fedora are setup buffet style, each person picks
what it is they want to work on. Being in the group gives them the
rights or status to accomplish the tasks, but they still pick which
tasks to work on.
So if the KDE sig recruits some QA people or releng people, I don't see
any problem with those people only taking on KDE related QA/releng
tasks. In fact, I would /expect/ that.
We don't really assign tasks in Fedora groups, we just try to make it
easy for people to pick which tasks they want to work on.
Put another way:
Joining a "Generic QA Group" to help with the QA of FooDE seems like unnecessary overhead, unless it's *very clear* what advantage joining that group confers. It may well be easier to simply have the FooDE SIG hold their own meetings, build their own schedules, do their own QA, write their own release notes, and do their own marketing. What clear value proposition is there to matrix this work across different SIGs/subprojects to the FooDE folks? Because it's not clear to me, and it doesn't seem like it's clear to the folks who are working on the various Spins, either.
--g
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
