On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 11:21 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > > people who would like input into that process (man, I shouldn't have > > thrown away that fridge magnet or I'd know the terminology ;>) - need to > > decide on a process that will actually be honored by both sides. > > You're thinking of RACI, Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and > Informed. That was it. > What's happened in the past is more like this: > > Zappers add /potential/ blockers to a blocker list, and > releng/qa/sigs/etc.. review the issues on the blocker list and determine > if we really would delay the release for the issue, and move it > accordingly. That process is somewhat opaque and often happens either > over a phone call (Fedora Talk) or IRC meetings, were we hijack people's > time to actually look at the bugs and make the call. Each special > interest area (SIG) makes the call for the bugs that effect their area. > We don't have the best participation here, but we're trying to grow it. It just doesn't seem like the best way of organizing things - that way no-one really has ownership of the process, I suspect that it becomes something of a mess and there's lots of heat without light? It also sounds like it doesn't necessarily take on board much feedback from users. I honestly think it'd work better if a group - as I said, I think bugzappers is the best candidate - had ownership of the blocker bugs process. Of course, they should be very receptive to input from the SIGs and developers, and there would at a practical level be an ultimate override in the hands of the guys who actually do the releases. Sorry if I'm way off base on this, just trying to provide a perspective. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
