QA as a sub-project: draft 'governance' section for the wiki

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 03/21/2012 06:59 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> 2012/3/21 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg at gmail.com>:
>
>> Basically the board is faced with this.
>>
>> A) make QA an SIG and merge bugzappers back into it
.......why?
>> Or
>>
>> B) Split the relevant parts of QA into their own indvidual SIG (
>> Triagers/Reporters/AutoQA etc ) with their own resources...
.....again, why?

Seriously: QA clearly has their collective stuff together and meets all 
of the requirements, someone asked, and frankly, I don't think it hurts 
anyways to have minor details on any part of the fedora wiki  about how 
a group, SIG, team, or random band of hoodlums operates, so that anyone 
interested in participating in that group effort can easily understand 
the structure of participation.

Projects that are related are not required to fold into one another. 
Otherwise, Marketing, Design, and Ambassadors, all loosely related, 
would be one Subproject.  It's very clear to me, from going back and 
reading mailfromdawnoftime, that it was about Groups Getting Things 
Done. Not claiming territory over certain domains of expertise.

If you feel that QA is not worthy of being a subproject, then please say 
so. If you feel that Bugzappers is no longer worthy of being called a 
subproject, then perhaps you should take that up with the Board or the 
bugzappers. But, IMO, let's not mix the issues together; they are 
separate groups.
> The Board can't confer resources on anything, really.  What type of
> "resources" are you referring to? Are there resources that these
> various functions (that I believe all belong under the QA umbrella,
> but that's just my personal opinion) need that they don't have today?
>
>> We did not reach consensus back in the day but hey feel free to decide this
>> for us...
> Speaking with my own individual Board hat on, I don't think that we're
> looking to "decide" anything for QA. In fact, I found it sort of
> ludicrous that the whole intention of the ticket was to get some sort
> of blessing so that QA could be on the left navbar of the wiki - which
> in my mind shouldn't require any special status being bestowed on a
> group by the Board, it should just require as Adam stated in his
> proposed "governance" policy - broad consensus that this is The Right
> Thing To Do(TM).
>
> As for the bugzappers, I don't believe that they had any special
> status conferred on them, or pulled any strings - but they were on the
> left side of the wiki long before my time (which started all the way
> back in 2007, when I had to gpg sign my CLA and the wiki was still
> MoinMoin!)

There is detail going all the way back to June 2006 about Fedora Testing 
and Bugzappers and the formation of those groups as subprojects. We can 
either accept that The Right Thing Was Done or we can suspect that 
someone broke the rules and go hunting for a needle in a haystack for 
the nitty-gritty details. I, for one, would prefer to assume that the 
folks who were involved at that point in time, many of whom are still 
around in one capacity or another, did the right thing, or had the best 
of intentions.