Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

[Adam Miller]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these 'products'
> get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want?
> Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA and the developers to sort out
> the results.
>
> Furthermore, you then leave 'downstream' higher-level packages and
> applications having to, for example, code to PolicyKit0, PolicyKit1, or
> consolehelper, depending on what each 'product' use case might use. Or,
> having to build their python extensions simultaneously for python2.4, python2.6,
> and python3.0. These sorts of things would be extremely painful for
> developers, and would bloat the QA matrix excessively.
>
> Not to reduce the debate to too much of a soundbite, but it almost
> seems like attempting to decide whether we want Fedora to be Debian,
> or to be something useful for users of it. I'd always pick the latter...
<Snip>

I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the
larger QA efforts instead of potentially against them?

-AdamM

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments