Who are QA?

James Laska jlaska at redhat.com
Mon Mar 21 14:28:30 UTC 2011

On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 08:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 15:26 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > 2011/3/18 Jóhann B. <johannbg at gmail.com>:
> > > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 14:07 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > >> Actually for the entire email as it comes across very rambling and
> > >> unfocused. Could you rewrite and resend?
> > >
> > > Take three all put together hopefully clearer..
> > >
> > > There was a recent topic raised on [1] with regards it was difficult to
> > > find information how Fedora is governed.
> > 
> > Ok I think this is clearer. You are wondering:
> > 
> > 1) What is QA's charter, and who has chartered it
> > 2) What is QA governance methodology and who decides things
> > 3) How to make this easier and clearer for people to know.
> > 4) Do SIG's have votes and such?
> > 
> > In general SIG's do not have elections, boards, or votes while
> > Steeting Committees do. [Having gone through this by devolving EPEL
> > from a SCO to a SIG.] They also do not usually have formal charters,
> > bylaws, elections etc as most SIG's tend to be usually set up by very
> > individualistic people (eg the type that will do what needs doing as
> > long as they aren't told what to do :)).
> Well, Johann is actually right that there are cases where we do more or
> less give SIGs a vote. A good example is the blocker review and go/no-go
> process, where on a very informal basis we take votes from QA, rel-eng,
> devel, and FPL. There's no 'constitution' for this and no definition of
> how we decide who can vote on behalf of which body; it usually winds up
> being whoever shows up for the meeting and can be argued to fit into one
> of those boxes. It's certainly something that could be improved, but it
> may be one of those things that turn into one of those horribly messy
> long-drawn out arguments...

Yeah, I think we've made a lot of progress in defining the process by
which testers can escalate important bugs that they feel hinder the
release criteria, or should be considered as release blockers.

We can certainly add more guidance to the go/no_go voting process [1].
It's actually kind of fun to see this topic raised, considering in the
past we haven't had enough people interested in participating.  


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110321/b6fb1967/attachment.bin 

More information about the test mailing list