Re: [OM Cooker] Separate qa mailing list, why?!?!

On 08/01/2013 09:23 PM, Ben Bullard wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 07:29 PM, Per =D8yvind Karlsen wrote:
>> 2013/8/2 Ben Bullard <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]=
t>>
>>
>>     On 08/01/2013 09:21 AM, Per =D8yvind Karlsen wrote:
>>>     worsen communication
>>     As compared to the high level of communication on this list? :-D
>>
>> Touch=E9. ;)
>>
>> I was more thinking along the lines of being more difficult to follow
>> discussions though. :)
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Per =D8yvind
> I am the person who asked for the list and I asked for it to be private
> for members of the QA team to discuss things amongst ourselves without
> outside noise. It is other people who decided it should be a public
> list. I still believe it should be private. OM-General and OM-Cooker ar=
e
> more that enough for public discussion. In fact other lists such as
> OM-council and OM-infra are private. As should, IMOH, be OM-QA.

Just as another point of reference, Mageia also has council, sysadmin=20
(infrastructure), and QA mailing lists.  However, I believe they are all=20
public.  Obviously private communications can take place off-list if=20
things are sensitive, but this is usually not necessary.  The QA team=20
actually has two lists, one that receives the bugzilla mails assigned to=20
the QA team, and another for discussion.  So this isn't unreasonable at a=
ll.

> Any QA teams work is ultimately public and should be as is ours. Yet al=
l
> organizations at times see a need do do some things privately with a
> small work group. This is not new. It is not unusual. The 6/24 .iso is =
a
> prime example of something that most definitely should have been tested
> internally before public release. This type of testing can't be done
> while communicating on a list open to the public. Do any of you actuall=
y
> believe that Fedora or OpenSuSE release an Alpha .iso without internal
> QA? I know for a fact that they don't. Hence they both have private
> channels of communication for various work groups as do many opensource
> groups, non-profit, for profit business organizations. Again not only i=
s
> this not unusual it is standard practice.

Fair enough, but I don't really see the need for the *communication* to=20
be private.  The way Mageia handles it is the actually ISOs themselves,=20
while they are being internally tested by the QA team, are available on=20
a password-protected rsync server, and the passwords are distributed by=20
private e-mail.  All of the actual communication takes place on IRC or=20
an online collaboratively-edited document, both of which are public,=20
although it's mostly just QA team members looking at this communication.