A Topic that needs to be discussed on next the QA meeting..

[Will Woods]

On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Johann B. Gudmundsson  
> <johannbg at hi.is> wrote:
>> See bugs
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437811
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136289
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=147557
>>
>> In my books this fails QA bigtime and poses a MAJOR security risk for
>> the end user(s).

You're entitled to your opinion, but if the security team doesn't  
think it should be disabled by default, why would you ask QA to  
contradict them?

>> It's good that some one in QA board can contact Fedora Security  
>> team and
>> get their input on this issue.
>
> QA Board???  I didn't know such a thing existed.  I nominate myself :)
> Seriously, Jeremy would be about the closest thing that you come to
> that (Will and Jesse as well).

It doesn't. Although it's not a bad idea. Right now there's one  
official position: QA Lead. That's me. If QA were to have a board, I'd  
want it to have the following positions:

* QA Lead (Will Woods)
Accountable for the actions of the whole group.
Advises the rest of the project about QA sanity.
Does a bit of everything below, too.

In my mind there's five main subgroups for QA, and each needs a team  
lead:

* Bugmaster
Writes bugzilla policies and manages triage efforts.
* Release Test Team Lead
Organizes test efforts for new releases.
* Stable Test Team Lead
Organizes testing for updates to stable releases.
* Test Plankeeper
Organizes efforts to maintain test plans for various parts of Fedora.
* Tool Maestro
Develops tools for automating/simplifying the previous jobs.

Also I'd want some advisors:
* Devel Advisor - an advisor from the devel group.
* Rel-eng Advisor - an advisor from rel-eng.

..anyway. This is a bit off-topic. The point is: You'll notice none of  
those positions involve, say, setting distribution policy in regards  
to security or features.

We're not here to make policy decisions about security issues. The  
Security folks do that. They're the experts.

We advise the other teams on what is sane and testable. And then we  
test.

> It is already CLOSED NOTABUG, and should remain that way.

If the security team has reviewed it and deemed it NOTABUG then I'd  
defer to their judgement.

-w