critera proposal/discussion: FESCo blockers

[Kevin Fenzi]

Greetings. 

Per: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1126 I'm sending this here
for comment. 

Rarely, but from time to time there is some change FESCo has required
before they will go at the go/no-go meeting. While we could just leave
that to the meeting, it would be better/nicer IMHO if we could track
these issues using the same process QA uses for blockers so there's no
suprise at the go/no-go meeting and everyone knows some bug needs to be
addressed. 

So: 

Criteria: Any bugs FESCo deems blocking (as voted on by a
majority of FESCo members) are added to the the blocker for that
milestone. 

Happy to have revisions or better ideas... 

kevin

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 11:29 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  Greetings. 
>  
>  Per: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1126 I'm sending this here
>  for comment. 
>  
>  Rarely, but from time to time there is some change FESCo has required
>  before they will go at the go/no-go meeting. While we could just leave
>  that to the meeting, it would be better/nicer IMHO if we could track
>  these issues using the same process QA uses for blockers so there's no
>  suprise at the go/no-go meeting and everyone knows some bug needs to be
>  addressed. 
>  
>  So: 
>  
>  Criteria: Any bugs FESCo deems blocking (as voted on by a
>  majority of FESCo members) are added to the the blocker for that
>  milestone. 
>  
>  Happy to have revisions or better ideas...  
So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
perhaps:

'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be fixed.'

Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed'
as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it -
but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common Sense
(tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making mechanism -
majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at least
theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its decision-making
mechanism in future, and then the criterion would need to be updated for
no good reason. All that matters to the blocker process is that 'FESCo
Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by which FESCo Deems things is out
of scope.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the
> form
>  'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
>  perhaps:
>  
>  'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
>  fixed.'
>  
>  Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed'
>  as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
>  around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
>  - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
>  Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
>  mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
>  least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
>  decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
>  need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
>  blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
>  which FESCo Deems things is out of scope. 
Sure. Works for me. 

kevin

[Adam Williamson]

On 2013-06-21 10:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
>  Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
> > So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
> > 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
> > perhaps:
> > 
> > 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
> > fixed.'
> > 
> > Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and
> 'addressed'
> > as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
> > around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
> > - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
> > Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
> > mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
> > least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
> > decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
> > need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
> > blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
> > which FESCo Deems things is out of scope.
>  
>  Sure. Works for me. 
As there were no objections, I'm adding this to the Alpha page as I 
create the F20 criteria pages. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  On 2013-06-21 10:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
>  > Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > 
>  >> So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
>  >> 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'.
> So
>  >> perhaps:
>  >> 
>  >> 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
>  >> fixed.'
>  >> 
>  >> Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and
> 'addressed'
>  >> as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
>  >> around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
>  >> - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
>  >> Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
>  >> mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
>  >> least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
>  >> decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
>  >> need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
>  >> blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
>  >> which FESCo Deems things is out of scope.
>  > 
>  > Sure. Works for me.
>  
>  As there were no objections, I'm adding this to the Alpha page as I
>  create the F20 criteria pages. Thanks! 
Late +1! It's good to have it documented and part of blocker process to
avoid surprises.

R.

>  --
>  Adam Williamson
>  Fedora QA Community Monkey
>  IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
>  http://www.happyassassin.net
>  --
>  test mailing list
>  test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe:
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test