On 03/21/2012 06:59 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
2012/3/21 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>:
Basically the board is faced with this.
A) make QA an SIG and merge bugzappers back into it
.......why?
Or
B) Split the relevant parts of QA into their own indvidual SIG (
Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc ) with their own resources...
.....again, why?
Seriously: QA clearly has their collective stuff together and meets all
of the requirements, someone asked, and frankly, I don't think it hurts
anyways to have minor details on any part of the fedora wiki about how
a group, SIG, team, or random band of hoodlums operates, so that anyone
interested in participating in that group effort can easily understand
the structure of participation.
Projects that are related are not required to fold into one another.
Otherwise, Marketing, Design, and Ambassadors, all loosely related,
would be one Subproject. It's very clear to me, from going back and
reading mailfromdawnoftime, that it was about Groups Getting Things
Done. Not claiming territory over certain domains of expertise.
If you feel that QA is not worthy of being a subproject, then please say
so. If you feel that Bugzappers is no longer worthy of being called a
subproject, then perhaps you should take that up with the Board or the
bugzappers. But, IMO, let's not mix the issues together; they are
separate groups.
The Board can't confer resources on anything, really. What type of
"resources" are you referring to? Are there resources that these
various functions (that I believe all belong under the QA umbrella,
but that's just my personal opinion) need that they don't have today?
We did not reach consensus back in the day but hey feel free to decide this
for us...
Speaking with my own individual Board hat on, I don't think that we're
looking to "decide" anything for QA. In fact, I found it sort of
ludicrous that the whole intention of the ticket was to get some sort
of blessing so that QA could be on the left navbar of the wiki - which
in my mind shouldn't require any special status being bestowed on a
group by the Board, it should just require as Adam stated in his
proposed "governance" policy - broad consensus that this is The Right
Thing To Do(TM).
As for the bugzappers, I don't believe that they had any special
status conferred on them, or pulled any strings - but they were on the
left side of the wiki long before my time (which started all the way
back in 2007, when I had to gpg sign my CLA and the wiki was still
MoinMoin!)
There is detail going all the way back to June 2006 about Fedora Testing
and Bugzappers and the formation of those groups as subprojects. We can
either accept that The Right Thing Was Done or we can suspect that
someone broke the rules and go hunting for a needle in a haystack for
the nitty-gritty details. I, for one, would prefer to assume that the
folks who were involved at that point in time, many of whom are still
around in one capacity or another, did the right thing, or had the best
of intentions.
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
