On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:00 -0400, James Laska wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 02:09 +0000, "JÃhann B. GuÃmundsson" wrote: > > On 05/18/2011 02:03 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> I hope that's acceptable to all! If not, or anyone has ideas for > > >> improvement, do say so... > > > As a formerly very active QA guy, and less so now since I got a new > > > $DAYJOB, I think that this makes sense, bit I do have minor concerns > > > over what happens if someone goes and clears the blocker list just > > > before the meeting for the sake of being able to say that there are > > > none. I hope that this concern is mostly academic, though :) > > > > Well let's just hope for our own sake that we will notice if someone > > suddenly goes and clears out the blocker list out of nowhere.. > > Yeah that's lame ... I think the likelihood of someone sabotaging the > process is low, and we thankfully have plenty of smart folks involved > monitoring the bugs should anything happen. Note that this process doesn't preclude adjusting the blocker list during the go/no-go meeting (in fact, it actively suggests it in a similar case). What I expect would happen if someone maliciously cleared the blocker list is that we would simply restore it before casting the vote. This should be non-controversial, as the conditions for changing blocker status are clear and specified in the blocker process SOP, so there should be no problem identifying a malicious change. I don't think it's worth codifying this, there's always a point at which it becomes futile to try and write down every little thing and you just have to go with common sense. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
