On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:52:09 -0400 (EDT)
Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > I have a feeling that I haven't explained properly that
the core
> > of the proposal is a SOP change, and the web app workflow is just
> > a bonus to make it prettier. Is it clearer now? Do you still have
> > the same concerns?
>
> To an extent, yeah. I guess I just feel like the 'manual' version of
> this process is too complex to rely on, and would result in bugs
> that should be nominated not getting nominated.
Hmm, I see. You might be right and that's why I always imagined it
with the tooling support.
So, what if we kept everything intact and just changed our internal
QA process? 1. Any user proposes anything as a FE by tagging the bug
2. One of QA members adds a Bugzilla comment (we can keep a template
somewhere) that basically asks: a) whether there is an available
developer willing to work on it in the required timeframe b) the
developer to provide some useful details, like the risks involved 3.
On the blocker bug meeting, the organizer goes through the list in
advance and pre-selects for discussion those bugs which already have
some developer feedback. Of course we can also include in the
discussion those bugs for which we know the developers are available
over IRC and can provide us with the information in real time.
Typically anaconda developers. The purpose is not to have
bureaucratic hurdles, but just make sure we receive some basic data
to work with, and to know the developers want to fix it. It doesn't
matter which channel it goes through.
This is a fairly minimal change and all the burden is on us. It still
keeps the idea of avoiding useless discussions.
While I agree that it could reduce the amount of time that we spend in
blocker review meetings as a group, I'm not sure that the amount of
time saved would be worth the overhead of doing all of that manually.
Going through all of the proposed FE by hand and keeping track of
which ones are ready for discussion is rather tedious and mind-numbing.
Implementing the process changes in tooling would remove some of the
human time requirements but we'd have to take the time to implement
everything.
I wonder if it would be better to wait until F20 for changes like this
so that we have a better baseline for the amount of time spent in
review meetings and how much we would gain by making the FE
process more complicated with the added bureaucracy.
Tim