Remaining issues for the multi desktop DVD
awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jan 13 15:24:26 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:06 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> The Board is being looked to for approval, not to do the work. So why
> would you organize a project like this on the board trac rather than say
> the ambassadors' trac?
Maybe it'd help if I gave an example of how I think the process would
work much more smoothly.
Say the Board's trac instance is set up like FAMSCo's, so anyone with a
FAS account can file a ticket in it, and follow that ticket.
Instead of submitting the proposal of blessing the multidesktop spin to
this mailing list, Christoph would have created a ticket in the Board's
trac for it, with all the details of the proposal.
The proposal itself - should Fedora have a multidesktop spin - could
then be discussed there. Board members could weigh in and discuss. What
I envisage is that a consensus would then emerge, in which the Board
would tell Christoph (let's imagine this outcome, for the sake of
argument, as it's more interesting than the one in which they say 'no')
"okay, we like the idea in principle, but we think that issues A, B, C
and D need to be addressed before we approve it". Any discussion which
happened in an IRC meeting or phone conversation should be summarized
into a comment on the trac ticket.
That state of affairs would then be on record and available to the Board
and to the proposer, so it'd be clear to everyone involved where the
proposal stood and what should happen next. At any time, Christoph or
the Board could just go to the trac ticket to find out where the
proposal currently stands, rather than trying to mine the mailing list
archives and worrying that they may have missed something that happened
in IRC or on the phone. The Board would then make sure that issues A, B,
C and D were themselves appropriately tracked - not in the Board's trac,
but in the appropriate other project trac or Bugzilla instance.
Christoph would then go away and make sure those issues were resolved,
following up appropriately in the other trac / BZ instances. When he
reckoned the issues were appropriately resolved, he would come back to
the Board ticket and say 'okay, I think all the issues you raised are
now resolved, please approve the proposal'. The Board would then
discuss, again within the trac ticket so everything relating to the
specific process of the Board's approval of the proposal was kept
together, and say 'OK, we approve the proposal', or come back with more
requirements. In the end, the ticket would be closed when the proposal
was finally accepted or rejected.
That's how I see the process being used, anyway.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the advisory-board