11:56 a.m.
Hey, folks.
So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not actually officially a
Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly care!),
and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's silly
policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary efficiency and
speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
Robyn also requested that we have our 'goals' written down somewhere,
and that we have some kind of section on leadership/governance.
I'd say the line "It's our goal to continually improve the quality of
Fedora releases and updates" on the front page of the wiki, plus the
'Activities' section below, pretty much covers goals. As far as
leadership / governance goes, I propose adding the following to the wiki
somewhere, I guess the front page (though I really want to keep that
short and, um, free of silly bureaucracy, so if anyone can think of
anywhere else...)
== Governance ==
The QA project does not have a formal governance structure.
Decision-making is done by broad consensus and peer review, a mechanism
which has worked successfully for many years. There is no single leader
of the QA project. Significant decisions will be taken by implied or
explicit vote on the project mailing list, in the project meeting, or in
a project trac ticket relevant to the issue at hand. Any issue requiring
the QA team's input should be brought up on the project mailing list or
at a project meeting, or filed as a project trac ticket.
That's just off the top of my head, obviously. Amendments /
improvements / shortening (especially shortening!) welcome. Let's use
consensus to produce the statement that we do things by consensus. ;)
I'm not sure if it's worth specifically calling out that probably the
most important recurring decision that's our responsibility - signing
off on releases - is taken according to strict deterministic rules (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting ).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:59 p.m.
On 03/21/2012 04:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, folks.
So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not actually officially a
Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly care!),
and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's silly
policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary efficiency and
speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
I'm a bit amazed that the board is going to approve some proposal that
has not been presented to the QA community ( and I'm equally amazed that
James did not present that to the QA community )
I for one would like to know exactly the details and the content of that
ticket and an justification from the board on why it's approving an
proposal that affects the whole QA community without the QA community
actually knowing anything about it.
Robyn also requested that we have our 'goals' written down somewhere,
and that we have some kind of section on leadership/governance.
There is no leadership or governance in the QA community other than the
individual himself and there is no need to have one.
I'd say the line "It's our goal to continually improve the quality of
Fedora releases and updates" on the front page of the wiki, plus the
'Activities' section below, pretty much covers goals. As far as
leadership / governance goes, I propose adding the following to the wiki
somewhere, I guess the front page (though I really want to keep that
short and, um, free of silly bureaucracy, so if anyone can think of
anywhere else...)
== Governance ==
The QA project does not have a formal governance structure.
Decision-making is done by broad consensus and peer review, a mechanism
which has worked successfully for many years. There is no single leader
of the QA project. Significant decisions will be taken by implied or
explicit vote on the project mailing list, in the project meeting, or in
a project trac ticket relevant to the issue at hand. Any issue requiring
the QA team's input should be brought up on the project mailing list or
at a project meeting, or filed as a project trac ticket.
Agreed I think the above describes us perfectly.
JBG
7:10 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 23:59 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 03/21/2012 04:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks.
>
> So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not actually officially a
> Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly care!),
> and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
> off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
> Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's silly
> policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
> it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
> exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
>
> Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary efficiency and
> speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
> that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
I'm a bit amazed that the board is going to approve some proposal that
has not been presented to the QA community ( and I'm equally amazed that
James did not present that to the QA community )
I for one would like to know exactly the details and the content of that
ticket and an justification from the board on why it's approving an
proposal that affects the whole QA community without the QA community
actually knowing anything about it.
As far as I understand it, it really doesn't have any particular
material impact on us. It seems to have just been one of those things
where someone looked at the list of projects -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects - and wondered why the heck QA
wasn't on there. As far as I can figure out from the wiki, Official
Project Status doesn't actually confer any particular responsibilities
or rights or obligations or anything on us. I can't see where it's going
to have any kind of concrete impact on what we do, at all. It really
just seems to be a 'duh, of COURSE QA should be on that list' thing.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
7:29 p.m.
On 03/21/2012 05:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 23:59 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 04:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Hey, folks.
>>
>> So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not actually officially a
>> Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly care!),
>> and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
>> off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
>> Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's silly
>> policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
>> it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
>> exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
>>
>> Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary efficiency and
>> speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
>> that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
> I'm a bit amazed that the board is going to approve some proposal that
> has not been presented to the QA community ( and I'm equally amazed that
> James did not present that to the QA community )
>
> I for one would like to know exactly the details and the content of that
> ticket and an justification from the board on why it's approving an
> proposal that affects the whole QA community without the QA community
> actually knowing anything about it.
The QA community discussed it at a meeting
in 2011. Logs are here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110418
We're approving it, in my humble, speaking only for myself opinion,
because Mr. Laska filed the request with what appears to be reasonable
backup and consensus amongst the group.
As far as I understand it, it really doesn't have any particular
material impact on us. It seems to have just been one of those things
where someone looked at the list of projects -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects - and wondered why the heck QA
wasn't on there. As far as I can figure out from the wiki, Official
Project Status doesn't actually confer any particular responsibilities
or rights or obligations or anything on us. I can't see where it's going
to have any kind of concrete impact on what we do, at all. It really
just seems to be a 'duh, of COURSE QA should be on that list' thing.
The
details are copy-pasted here:
At a recent QA team meeting, StylusEater?
<https://fedorahosted.org/board/wiki/StylusEater> asked whether Fedora
QA was a project or a SIG. I haven't paid much attention to this
designation so far, since it didn't seem relevant or needed at the time.
However, StylusEater? <https://fedorahosted.org/board/wiki/StylusEater>
noted this came up while investigating adding "Quality Assurance" to the
list of sub-projects on the wiki left navigation menu. It would be nice
to include "Quality Assurance" on the wiki left side navigation menu to
improve advertising for the team. However, to be added to that list, the
websites team correctly noted that QA must first be blessed as a
sub-project. According to DefiningProjects
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects>;, the board is
responsible for making this decision.
So, the ultimate goal ... is to include 'quality assurance' under the
list of sub-projects in the left-side navigation menu on the wiki. Is
approval as a project required to achieve this? If so, I'd like to get
the ball rolling to define QA as a sub-project.
Aside: The current state of projects and SIGs is slightly confusing on
the wiki. Fr example, BugZappers?
<https://fedorahosted.org/board/wiki/BugZappers>;, a QA sub-project, is
listed as a SIG <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs#Bug_Triage> and
listed as a project <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki>
in the left nav-menu. Also, QA is listed as sub-project on the wiki
start page <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki>;, but not
in the list of projects <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects>;.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110418
7:36 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 17:29 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On 03/21/2012 05:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 23:59 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 03/21/2012 04:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey, folks.
> > >
> > > So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not actually officially
a
> > > Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly
care!),
> > > and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
> > > off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
> > > Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's
silly
> > > policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
> > > it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
> > > exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
> > >
> > > Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary efficiency and
> > > speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
> > > that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
> > I'm a bit amazed that the board is going to approve some proposal that
> > has not been presented to the QA community ( and I'm equally amazed that
> > James did not present that to the QA community )
> >
> > I for one would like to know exactly the details and the content of that
> > ticket and an justification from the board on why it's approving an
> > proposal that affects the whole QA community without the QA community
> > actually knowing anything about it.
The QA community discussed it at a meeting in 2011. Logs are here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110418
We're approving it, in my humble, speaking only for myself opinion,
because Mr. Laska filed the request with what appears to be reasonable
backup and consensus amongst the group.
Sigh. There I go, relying on my memory again. I clearly didn't have
enough lunch whiskey today.
I did check the list archives and didn't find any discussion there, but
forgot to check the meeting archives. My bad!
I was at the meeting but had clearly forgotten all about it. It looks
like you weren't there, Johann, which is probably why you don't remember
it :)
Still, score one for our obsessive recording of meetings!
> As far as I understand it, it really doesn't have any
particular
> material impact on us. It seems to have just been one of those things
> where someone looked at the list of projects -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects - and wondered why the heck QA
> wasn't on there. As far as I can figure out from the wiki, Official
> Project Status doesn't actually confer any particular responsibilities
> or rights or obligations or anything on us. I can't see where it's going
> to have any kind of concrete impact on what we do, at all. It really
> just seems to be a 'duh, of COURSE QA should be on that list' thing.
The details are copy-pasted here:
At a recent QA team meeting, StylusEater? asked whether Fedora QA was
a project or a SIG. I haven't paid much attention to this designation
so far, since it didn't seem relevant or needed at the time. However,
StylusEater? noted this came up while investigating adding "Quality
Assurance" to the list of sub-projects on the wiki left navigation
menu. It would be nice to include "Quality Assurance" on the wiki left
side navigation menu to improve advertising for the team. However, to
be added to that list, the websites team correctly noted that QA must
first be blessed as a sub-project. According to DefiningProjects, the
board is responsible for making this decision.
So, the ultimate goal ... is to include 'quality assurance' under the
list of sub-projects in the left-side navigation menu on the wiki. Is
approval as a project required to achieve this? If so, I'd like to get
the ball rolling to define QA as a sub-project.
Aside: The current state of projects and SIGs is slightly confusing on
the wiki. Fr example, BugZappers?, a QA sub-project, is listed as a
SIG and listed as a project in the left nav-menu. Also, QA is listed
as sub-project on the wiki start page, but not in the list of
projects.
Thanks for the clarification, Robyn! Sorry I didn't double-check this
with you first.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
8:02 p.m.
On 03/22/2012 12:29 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
So, the ultimate goal ... is to include 'quality assurance' under the
list of sub-projects in the left-side navigation menu on the wiki. Is
approval as a project required to achieve this? If so, I'd like to get
the ball rolling to define QA as a sub-project.
Hmm I cant recall the bugzappers ever have gone through some formal SIG
process I think they just were added there on the list
( or strings where pulled to add them there to keep peace ).
It was not without a reason they decided to separate themselves from the
QA community at that time.
Aside: The current state of projects and SIGs is slightly confusing
on
the wiki. Fr example, BugZappers?
<https://fedorahosted.org/board/wiki/BugZappers>;, a QA sub-project, is
listed as a SIG <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs#Bug_Triage> and
listed as a project
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki> in the left
nav-menu. Also, QA is listed as sub-project on the wiki start page
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki>;, but not in the
list of projects <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects>;.
As I mentioned as before things kinda ended up in that state.
Basically the board is faced with this.
A) make QA an SIG and merge bugzappers back into it
Or
B) Split the relevant parts of QA into their own indvidual SIG (
Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc ) with their own resources...
We did not reach consensus back in the day but hey feel free to decide
this for us...
JBG
8:59 p.m.
2012/3/21 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>:
Basically the board is faced with this.
A) make QA an SIG and merge bugzappers back into it
Or
B) Split the relevant parts of QA into their own indvidual SIG (
Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc ) with their own resources...
The Board can't confer resources on anything, really. What type of
"resources" are you referring to? Are there resources that these
various functions (that I believe all belong under the QA umbrella,
but that's just my personal opinion) need that they don't have today?
We did not reach consensus back in the day but hey feel free to
decide this
for us...
Speaking with my own individual Board hat on, I don't think that we're
looking to "decide" anything for QA. In fact, I found it sort of
ludicrous that the whole intention of the ticket was to get some sort
of blessing so that QA could be on the left navbar of the wiki - which
in my mind shouldn't require any special status being bestowed on a
group by the Board, it should just require as Adam stated in his
proposed "governance" policy - broad consensus that this is The Right
Thing To Do(TM).
As for the bugzappers, I don't believe that they had any special
status conferred on them, or pulled any strings - but they were on the
left side of the wiki long before my time (which started all the way
back in 2007, when I had to gpg sign my CLA and the wiki was still
MoinMoin!)
9:42 p.m.
On 03/21/2012 06:59 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
2012/3/21 "Jóhann B.
Guðmundsson"<johannbg(a)gmail.com>:
> Basically the board is faced with this.
>
> A) make QA an SIG and merge bugzappers back into it
.......why?
> Or
>
> B) Split the relevant parts of QA into their own indvidual SIG (
> Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc ) with their own resources...
.....again, why?
Seriously: QA clearly has their collective stuff together and meets all
of the requirements, someone asked, and frankly, I don't think it hurts
anyways to have minor details on any part of the fedora wiki about how
a group, SIG, team, or random band of hoodlums operates, so that anyone
interested in participating in that group effort can easily understand
the structure of participation.
Projects that are related are not required to fold into one another.
Otherwise, Marketing, Design, and Ambassadors, all loosely related,
would be one Subproject. It's very clear to me, from going back and
reading mailfromdawnoftime, that it was about Groups Getting Things
Done. Not claiming territory over certain domains of expertise.
If you feel that QA is not worthy of being a subproject, then please say
so. If you feel that Bugzappers is no longer worthy of being called a
subproject, then perhaps you should take that up with the Board or the
bugzappers. But, IMO, let's not mix the issues together; they are
separate groups.
The Board can't confer resources on anything, really. What type
of
"resources" are you referring to? Are there resources that these
various functions (that I believe all belong under the QA umbrella,
but that's just my personal opinion) need that they don't have today?
> We did not reach consensus back in the day but hey feel free to decide this
> for us...
Speaking with my own individual Board hat on, I don't think that we're
looking to "decide" anything for QA. In fact, I found it sort of
ludicrous that the whole intention of the ticket was to get some sort
of blessing so that QA could be on the left navbar of the wiki - which
in my mind shouldn't require any special status being bestowed on a
group by the Board, it should just require as Adam stated in his
proposed "governance" policy - broad consensus that this is The Right
Thing To Do(TM).
As for the bugzappers, I don't believe that they had any special
status conferred on them, or pulled any strings - but they were on the
left side of the wiki long before my time (which started all the way
back in 2007, when I had to gpg sign my CLA and the wiki was still
MoinMoin!)
There is detail going all the way back to June 2006 about Fedora Testing
and Bugzappers and the formation of those groups as subprojects. We can
either accept that The Right Thing Was Done or we can suspect that
someone broke the rules and go hunting for a needle in a haystack for
the nitty-gritty details. I, for one, would prefer to assume that the
folks who were involved at that point in time, many of whom are still
around in one capacity or another, did the right thing, or had the best
of intentions.
3:35 a.m.
On 03/22/2012 02:42 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
There is detail going all the way back to June 2006 about Fedora
Testing and Bugzappers and the formation of those groups as subprojects.
I'm very well aware of that and you can find my opinion on that matter
which is still unchanged after all those years.
I still think this was unwise of the people involved at that time both
the distinction from QA and the fact they though they where any
different from reporters
( you require exactly the same skill set ) but I listen and understood
and still understand why they felt they needed to do so in the first
place at that time.
We can either accept that The Right Thing Was Done or we can suspect
that someone broke the rules and go hunting for a needle in a haystack
for the nitty-gritty details. I, for one, would prefer to assume that
the folks who were involved at that point in time, many of whom are
still around in one capacity or another, did the right thing, or had
the best of intentions.
Nobody's questioning anyone's motive, the people involved felt they had
no other choice at the time so they where kinda forced into becoming a
"separated group" as you say.
I would hope that me and James managed to eliminate the underlying cause
which forced them to become a separated group/entity over the years and
they could be folded back into QA and we can work towards making
reporting and triaging part of the same process within the QA community.
If we failed in that regard then the triagers should consider finish
what was started all those years ago and apply for their own mailing
list,trac instance etc. and finish that separation and finally become
the "sub group" of the project that so many think they are.
JBG
3:54 a.m.
On Mar 22, 2012 8:37 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That sounds all very reasonable to me but ultimately that's got nothing to
do what so ever to do with this issue or the board. It's up to the relevant
projects, and even leaders within those projects, to reach out to each
other and sort the differences and to make the merge happen if it makes
sense.
Peter
On 03/22/2012 02:42 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> There is detail going all the
way back to June 2006 about Fedora Testing
and Bugzappers and the formation of those
groups as subprojects.
I'm very well aware of that and you can find my opinion on that matter
which is
still unchanged after all those years.
I still think this was unwise of the people involved at that time both
the
distinction from QA and the fact they though they where any different
from reporters
( you require exactly the same skill set ) but I listen and
understood
and still understand why they felt they needed to do so in the first
place
at that time.
> We can either accept that The Right Thing Was Done or we can suspect
that
someone broke the rules and go hunting for a needle in a haystack for
the nitty-gritty details. I, for one, would prefer to assume that the folks
who were involved at that point in time, many of whom are still around in
one capacity or another, did the right thing, or had the best of
intentions.
Nobody's questioning anyone's motive, the people involved felt they had
no
other choice at the time so they where kinda forced into becoming a
"separated group" as you say.
I would hope that me and James managed to eliminate the underlying cause
which
forced them to become a separated group/entity over the years and
they could be folded back into QA and we can work towards making reporting
and triaging part of the same process within the QA community.
If we failed in that regard then the triagers should consider finish what
was
started all those years ago and apply for their own mailing list,trac
instance etc. and finish that separation and finally become the "sub group"
of the project that so many think they are.
5:23 a.m.
On 03/22/2012 08:54 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
That sounds all very reasonable to me but ultimately that's got
nothing to do what so ever to do with this issue or the board. It's up
to the relevant projects, and even leaders within those projects, to
reach out to each other and sort the differences and to make the merge
happen if it makes sense.
Arguable it does.
From my point of view we should not make *any* changes to QA until we
have sorted this out since as I see it things will be no better then
they are now, until we do.
Once we have sorted this out we can properly plan and map the goals we
want to work towards and then either present and or propose that to the
board to be "sanctioned" or just do it ourselves since we are an rather
self sustaining community or at least we have been up to this point.
JBG
11:35 a.m.
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 10:23 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 03/22/2012 08:54 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> That sounds all very reasonable to me but ultimately that's got
> nothing to do what so ever to do with this issue or the board. It's up
> to the relevant projects, and even leaders within those projects, to
> reach out to each other and sort the differences and to make the merge
> happen if it makes sense.
>
Arguable it does.
From my point of view we should not make *any* changes to QA until we
have sorted this out since as I see it things will be no better then
they are now, until we do.
Once we have sorted this out we can properly plan and map the goals we
want to work towards and then either present and or propose that to the
board to be "sanctioned" or just do it ourselves since we are an rather
self sustaining community or at least we have been up to this point.
I'm really not sure there's much left to 'sort out'.
Bugzappers has been pretty dormant for the last year or so (aside from
dr johnson heroically accepting all new volunteers, thanks!) We don't
have bugzappers meetings and there haven't been any bugzapper specific
discussions on this list for months, we don't discuss approaches or
revise policies or processes or anything. My involvement with BZ dropped
drastically just because I don't have the time for it any more, and I
think a lot of others feel the same way.
There are still people bug zapping, but as far as I know, there's few if
any left who care one way or another about that whole historical tension
between BZ and QA.
I think Peter's right and it really shouldn't be a problem in any way to
approve QA as a subproject in its own right without really worrying
about the whole BZ controversy. And I also think that no-one would care
hugely if we were to just officially start considering BZ a part of QA
again; or, for that matter, if we didn't. It seems to me there is just,
unfortunately, not a huge deal of caring about BZ going on either way
right now.
By all means, if I'm wrong about this and you're sitting here reading
and thinking no, you fool, I am a person who cares deeply about the
official status of BZ!, then reply and let me know I'm wrong. :)
Anyhoo, just my take...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:17 p.m.
On Mar 22, 2012 12:00 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To clarify the actual request from James was to have QA linked directly
from the side bar on the wiki so it was quick and easy to find, the
requirements of the website team to do that is that it has to be an
official sub project. That has to be approved by the board for what ever
historical reasons. In terms of the qa community's knowledge of it, we
assumed that since a qa member filed the request you did bit it might have
been in the context of being added to the wiki sidebar. There is no
underlying motive.
>> Robyn also requested that we have our 'goals' written down somewhere,
>> and that we have some kind of section on leadership/governance.
> There is no leadership or
governance in the QA community other than the
individual himself and there is no need to have one.
> >>
I'd say the line "It's our goal to continually improve the quality of
>> Fedora releases and updates" on the front page of the wiki, plus the
>> 'Activities' section below, pretty much covers goals. As far as
>> leadership / governance goes, I propose adding the following to the wiki
>> somewhere, I guess the front page (though I really want to keep that
>> short and, um, free of silly bureaucracy, so if anyone can think of
>> anywhere else...)
> >> == Governance ==
> >> The QA project does not have a formal governance
structure.
>> Decision-making is done by broad consensus and peer review, a mechanism
>> which has worked successfully for many years. There is no single leader
>> of the QA project. Significant decisions will be taken by implied or
>> explicit vote on the project mailing list, in the project meeting, or in
>> a project trac ticket relevant to the issue at hand. Any issue requiring
>> the QA team's input should be brought up on the project mailing list or
>> at a project meeting, or filed as a project trac ticket.
> Agreed I think the above
describes us perfectly.
> JBG
> --
> test mailing list
> test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On 03/21/2012 04:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks.
> So here's some funny Fedora archaeology: QA is not
actually officially a
> Fedora sub-project. I didn't know this (and didn't particularly care!),
> and neither did I know that, aeons ago (well, last year), jlaska kicked
> off an attempt to make us one. As sub-project requests are filed as
> Board trac tickets, I can't link to it because of the Board's silly
> policy of making trac tickets private, so only they and jlaska can see
> it. But I'm assured it exists. If anyone is super-interested in this
> exciting, nay thrilling process, it's documented at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#Fedora_Projects .
> Anyway, Robyn tells me that with its customary, legendary
efficiency and
> speed, the Board has come to a swift decision a mere eight months later
> that QA should be accepted as a sub-project.
I'm a bit amazed that the board is going to approve some proposal that
has not
been presented to the QA community ( and I'm equally amazed that
James did not present that to the QA community )
I for one would like to know exactly the details and the content of that
ticket and
an justification from the board on why it's approving an
proposal that affects the whole QA community without the QA community
actually knowing anything about it.
4426
days inactive
4427
days old
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Adam Williamson -
Jon Stanley -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Peter Robinson -
Robyn Bergeron