Blocker Bug Voting and Conversation

[Tim Flink]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:34:12 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Anyhow, helpful thoughts would be appreciated. Hopefully we can
> > improve the process so that it's less painful for everyone and
> > maybe even more useful (at the very least, less difficult to
> > understand).
> 
> I don't want to overplay how bad the current system is, to be honest.
> It's a duct tape job, sure, but it's survived as long as it has
> because it actually achieves its goals fairly efficiently. I think we
> can definitely build something more solid, but let's not throw out any
> babies...

Hrm, I should have tried a bit harder to separate my thoughts. That
was a little bit of "the process is difficult to understand" tacked on
to the conversation bit that I was trying to discuss. I'm not trying to
say that the process is completely broken but I do think that it's
rather complicated and difficult to understand until you're familiar
with it.

I think the best evidence of this is the number of bugs which get
proposed as blockers or NTH without any justification of why or citing
of any release criterion that might be violated. I take that as "the
process isn't being communicated well and is complicated" rather than
"contributors are ignoring stuff".

I think that making the proposal process more straightforward and/or
easy would go a long way towards addressing this particular issue but
that's orthogonal to the "where do we have blocker conversations"
question.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20121204/18e39220/attachment.sig>