On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Leam Hall <leam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Cronenworth wrote: >>> >>> Daumas, I think I hit your concerns about expectations and have the basic >>> idea for documenting bodhi, koji, eieio... >>> >> >> Do we really need a Stream Liaison in the QA team? Should that role be in >> another Fedora group? >> >> What about people that wish to download packages from updates-testing and >> make sure they don't destroy the system (ex: dbus updates)? I would like to >> fill such a role. >> >> The other roles look fine to me, but I'm just a newb. >> > > Stream Liason is a reality check. My real goal would be an openness in QA > that lets us assimilate feedback from the user community and NOT require QA > to test every bloody thing under the sun before the GA date is hit. > > For example, if we have some finite community who really really really likes > TWM on PPC as their window manager then they can really really really help > by making sure THEY test it. Someone from that community could interact with > QA if TWM on PPC broke and that person/group could act as Stream Liason. > They would get the quickest updates, and would work into the system and be > able to articulate their community needs and Fedora's progress > bi-directionally. As another example, the (hypothetical) Stream Liason for X.org would, upon learning of the pending change to the very useful, non-harmful de-facto standard Ctrl-Alt-Backspace feature, communicate to upstream a strongly worded statement against it. Depending on the result, as representative of Fedora that he/she is, the SL can then either thank upstream for reversing the change and commend them for such understanding, or he/she can begin organizing the vigilante mob and plan the public lynching. Ahem, again speaking hypothetically, of course... jerry -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
