Re: frustration: mailing lists and bugzilla reports
Will Backman <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:49:18 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.rhl.beta,gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.testers |
|---|---|
| Organization | Coastal Enterprises, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <1068738557.4963.49.camel@dbxwsd21> |
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 10:29, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 15:25, Will Backman wrote: > > > The status of the bugzilla report as of today: still marked as new. > > > Frustrating. > > > > I figure that some of this is due to a lack of leadership structure. > > The leadership page is still a draft, mentions an advisory and technical > > committee, but has yet to add members or even describe how members are > > chosen. > > I don't quite see how it is related. If we select some form of > leadership, how will the bugs I don't have time to fix get fixed? > While anyone can fix a bug and post an rpm somewhere on the net, many users only want to draw from "sanctioned" repositories. At this point, all the burden is on a few wonderful folks at RedHat to fill those sanctioned repositories. I think this is the problem that RedHat is trying to avoid by making Fedora a community project and also merging with the fedora.us team. Why else merge with fedora.us? We need a way to spread the load, but at the same time providing quality screens. I assumed that the "Advisory" and "Technical" committees would address those issues, although I may have been reading too much into "the duties, responsibilities, and members of the advisory committee have not been completely decided." -- fedora-test-list mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list