Re: 2009-07-01 - Fedora QA meeting agenda

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:18 -0400, James Laska wrote: Just quoting some snippets from the "Lack of needed information" section: "the triager has no better clue what to include in the report" "The problem is that the maintainer(s) them self have failed to provide this information" "Contact FESCO and ask them to set this rule and enforce it." "New components will not be let into Fedora without this information" "To handle the existing components in Fedora I propose that we file a report ... If they do not respond ... the component in question will enter the removal phase" I don't think having FESCo approve and enforce rules for every aspect of package maintenance is a healthy or scalable way for us to encourage maintainers to do a better job. Suggesting that a package should be removed from Fedora because the package maintainer hasn't filled out some details in a wiki for bug reporters is fairly absurd. A better way to approach this would be for triagers to start a wiki page for the component with the kind of questions the maintainer typically requests, show the maintainer how useful that page is in getting good bug reports and encourage the maintainer to help improve the wiki page further. Please try to aim for more positive and collaborative solutions. Cheers, Mark. (On a related note, I haven't had much feedback on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reporting_virtualization_bugs suggestions on how to improve it are most welcome)