Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

> Greg, your reasoning here seems to assume that if you as a sig recruit
> somebody to QA, that person would then start doing things unrelated to
> your sig within the QA group.  That doesn't have to be the case.  Most
> of the groups within Fedora are setup buffet style, each person picks
> what it is they want to work on.  Being in the group gives them the
> rights or status to accomplish the tasks, but they still pick which
> tasks to work on.
>
> So if the KDE sig recruits some QA people or releng people, I don't see
> any problem with those people only taking on KDE related QA/releng
> tasks.  In fact, I would /expect/ that.
>
> We don't really assign tasks in Fedora groups, we just try to make it
> easy for people to pick which tasks they want to work on.
>

Put another way:

Joining a "Generic QA Group" to help with the QA of FooDE seems like
unnecessary overhead, unless it's *very clear* what advantage joining that
group confers.  It may well be easier to simply have the FooDE SIG hold
their own meetings, build their own schedules, do their own QA, write their
own release notes, and do their own marketing.  What clear value proposition
is there to matrix this work across different SIGs/subprojects to the FooDE
folks?  Because it's not clear to me, and it doesn't seem like it's clear to
the folks who are working on the various Spins, either.

--g
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20101203/053df011/attachment-0001.html