Who are QA?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 15:26 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 2011/3/18 Jóhann B. <johannbg at gmail.com>:
> > 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 :)).

Well, Johann is actually right that there are cases where we do more or
less give SIGs a vote. A good example is the blocker review and go/no-go
process, where on a very informal basis we take votes from QA, rel-eng,
devel, and FPL. There's no 'constitution' for this and no definition of
how we decide who can vote on behalf of which body; it usually winds up
being whoever shows up for the meeting and can be argued to fit into one
of those boxes. It's certainly something that could be improved, but it
may be one of those things that turn into one of those horribly messy
long-drawn out arguments...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net