2011/3/18 Jóhann B. <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 14:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Actually for the entire email as it comes across very rambling and >> unfocused. Could you rewrite and resend? > > Take three all put together hopefully clearer.. > > There was a recent topic raised on [1] with regards it was difficult to > find information how Fedora is governed. Ok I think this is clearer. You are wondering: 1) What is QA's charter, and who has chartered it 2) What is QA governance methodology and who decides things 3) How to make this easier and clearer for people to know. 4) Do SIG's have votes and such? In general SIG's do not have elections, boards, or votes while Steeting Committees do. [Having gone through this by devolving EPEL from a SCO to a SIG.] They also do not usually have formal charters, bylaws, elections etc as most SIG's tend to be usually set up by very individualistic people (eg the type that will do what needs doing as long as they aren't told what to do :)). Can this change, etc? Most likely. How to do this? uhm my guess would be to see if people want to form a SCO. > QA community has never voted on any QA board to handle any decision > making which kinda makes our community more or less self governed and > yet there have been cases where it has been mentioned that QA has > decided and QA has voted on various topics which may appear confusing to > outsiders and even our own community since we don't have any community > QA board > > We don't have anything on the QA page ( and most likely elsewhere ) that > explaining how QA is governed ( Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc. ) within > the QA community. ( Which should not come as a surprise since we don't > actually have any governs so to speak ) > > There are of course people in employment from Red Hat that are paid full > time to work in the QA community as there are other Red Hat employs paid > to work in other aspects of the Fedora project which in turns begs > question who actually hold any kind of authority over any kind of > decision making within the QA community. > > Some of of us know that it's most likely James that made that decision > and or Adam or some other Red Hat employee but to newcomers or people > generally unfamiliar to/with our community it may appear confusing. > > For example hows the board supposed to be able to clear that up to > people without us doing it first within the QA community? > > Do we want/need to vote a QA board/SIG that will handle that decision > making in the future or would listing of those individuals with some > kind of authority/decision/ruling power from the QA community on the QA > wikipage suffice or perhaps something else? > > What do new members/recently joined members of our community have to say > about this? > > JBG > > [1] > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-March/010584.html > > -- > test mailing list > test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test > -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
