Will Woods wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but if the security team doesn't
think it should be disabled by default, why would you ask QA to
contradict them?
"It's good that some one in QA board can contact Fedora Security team and
get their input on this issue."
I did not ask QA to contradict them I ask the QA to review this and get
input from the security team and
close the bug with a good explanation why this was being done ( for
future reference to the bug if this issue
would arise later in fedora's lifetime ) Something along the line
This has been reviewed by QA and the security team and is not consitered
a security hole enough
to out way the importance of having sshd up and running etc...
It's good that some one in QA board can contact Fedora Security team
and
get their input on this issue.
QA Board??? I didn't know such a thing existed. I nominate myself :)
Seriously, Jeremy would be about the closest thing that you come to
that (Will and Jesse as well).
It doesn't. Although it's not a bad idea. Right now there's one
official position: QA Lead. That's me. If QA were to have a board, I'd
want it to have the following positions:
Thats what I thought..
* QA Lead (Will Woods)
Accountable for the actions of the whole group.
Advises the rest of the project about QA sanity.
Does a bit of everything below, too.
In my mind there's five main subgroups for QA, and each needs a team
lead:
* Bugmaster
Writes bugzilla policies and manages triage efforts.
* Release Test Team Lead
Organizes test efforts for new releases.
* Stable Test Team Lead
Organizes testing for updates to stable releases.
* Test Plankeeper
Organizes efforts to maintain test plans for various parts of Fedora.
* Tool Maestro
Develops tools for automating/simplifying the previous jobs.
Also I'd want some advisors:
* Devel Advisor - an advisor from the devel group.
* Rel-eng Advisor - an advisor from rel-eng.
..anyway. This is a bit off-topic. The point is: You'll notice none of
those positions involve, say, setting distribution policy in regards
to security or features.
We're not here to make policy decisions about security issues. The
Security folks do that. They're the experts.
Thats what I thought as in them actually being experts......
We advise the other teams on what is sane and testable. And then we test.
Will you know it's a little bit more than the responsibility that weighs
on the QA and testers..
We are the last line of defense, things that get passed us get shipped
downstream whether it be
buggy code mis configured stuff etc.. and we take the heat for it ( I
actually guess you... ) if things arent working as they should be.
But then again I might being taking things to seriously..
Best regards
Johann B.
begin:vcard
fn:Johann B. Gudmundsson
n:Gudmundsson;Johann B.
org:Reiknistofnun - University of Iceland;IT Management
adr:Dunhagi 5;;Taeknigardur;Reykavik;;107;Iceland
email;internet:johannbg@xxxxx
title:Unix System Engineer RHCE,CCSA
tel;work:+3545254267
tel;fax:+3545528801
tel;pager:N/A
tel;home:N/A
tel;cell:N/A
url:http://www.rhi.hi.is
version:2.1
end:vcard
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
