Fedora Bugzilla Instance (was dormant bugs and our perception)

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Jan 4, 2008 6:20 AM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> Christopher Aillon said the following on 01/03/2008 08:59 AM Pacific Time:
> > On 01/03/2008 05:25 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
> >> First someone needs to come up with a *compelling* business case for
> >> *why* a separate bugzilla instance would truly make things better for
> >> Fedora.
> >
> > *Business* case?
>
> Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak" :)
>
> Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this
> because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate
> instance everything would be better".  So far I haven't found any of
> these arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it
> would cause to Fedora and Red Hat.
>
> Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving?
>
> Reading the rest of what you posted (which is one of the best
> explanations I've seen on this topic so far) it sounds like we disagree
> on the impact of changing.
>

To be honest, I think the business case would have to show that there
is lowering of cost of doing business in Fedora, and/or lowering the
cost of doing business in Red Hat.

The bonuses I see for another bugzilla is that it would allow for
better/faster integration with other organizations bugzilla's. The
amount of making sure that this doesn't break Red Hat business
continuity can grind things into low gear for a project that likes to
have things up in a beta form by end of the week, and ready for
production by the end of the month. The lower cost to Red Hat would be
less needs on a team that needs to focus on paying products versus
what time they have for something.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"