[Mageia-sysadm] ML request for QAteam

[Romain d'Alverny]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 20:47, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> Le jeudi 31 mars 2011 à 17:41 +0200, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
> I would also find more descriptive the purpose rather than the group
> name. For example, -dev instead of packagersteam@, ie focused on
> activity ( developping ) rather than the team naming ( packagers ). This
> would be imho be clearer if we want to foster cross team activities.

Well, there was a plan to have both activities (packaging and
development). It happens that, for now, packaging is the focus. And
packaging and developing are two separate activities, and having
devteam@ and packteam@ for instance, could make sense as well.

So the point is not here.

>> Or maybe qa-team at ml.mageia.org then?
>
> But we do have foo at group.mageia.org for that, to send a email to the
> ldap group mga-foo ( which is used to define a team so far for all
> others teams ). We could also use team.mageia.org ( but that would make
> thing more complex as not not all groups are a team ).
>
> I think we can all agree that the canonical list of member of a team is
> in a ldap group for all teams ( because that's what we did so far for
> web application integration, catdap integration, sympa integration,
> epoll integration, etc ).

Yes, but we discussed (several months ago) too to remind that it's not
because one is (or is not) a team member that it would necessarily be
subscribed to the team list; that should not be a bijective
relationship.

> So if the qa team is the list of people in the ldap group mga-qa,
> it is confusing to refer to a 2nd group ( the list of people who
> subscribed to the ml, and who would be ) as qateam.

There's the informal team list, where non-peers can subscribe and
participate. That's the mailing-list (communication/collaboration
goals).

And there's the formal team, made of peers only. That's the LDAP group
(credential/recognition goal).

These are two distinct sets that don't match exactly with each other.

>> (yes, it comes out too from years of practice of this naming scheme at
>> Mandriva where, well, these were internal list names/aliases - but
>> here it would be public as team's lists are :-p ).
>
> On mandriva qateam alias/ml, who was behind  ?
>
> While I was not here so I am maybe wrong, I suspect the aliases matched
> exactly the internal organisation.

Far from that. Cross-teams information

> Here, I do not know exactly because Damien ask for a public list, and to
> me that mean a list were anybody can subscribe and post, but maybe he
> mean a list that anybody can read ( something like council ).
>
> So in the hypothesis that the list is not restricted to members of the
> team, the name would be misleading.

We have already mageia-webteam at mageia.org. That's the team discussion
list, and it is open to everyone (lurkers included). Only a little
subset of its subscribers are team peers. And that is perfectly fine.

The only best convenient alternative approach I could see at this time
would be setting up a Wordpress blog + P2 theme + posting access to
everyone - and limit afterwise to subscribed users in case of detected
abuse (but that's not even considered, no need for it).

If we were to move the Web team ml to ml.mageia.org (I guess that will
happen some day) it should not strictly tie ml membership to team
membership - these are two different things.


> If the list is restricted, i think we would need a unrestricted list.
> ( hence another name would be chose ).

I don't think Damien meant for a restricted list.

> I would also add that it seems that people on the wiki
> ( http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=qateam ) have a different view of
> QA than what is written as a description ( and the purpose is the same
> as others team like debian one  http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/
> and ubuntu https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/ ).
>
> And the ratio of people saying "automation tool" vs "test packages" on
> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=qateam is quite clear ( 1 people for
> automation, 53 for "testing" ).

But that should not prevent the QA team to be further designed and
built for both practices (and still bear the "QA" name, as that's what
it is about).

Testers are testers, but maybe not necessarily meant to be QA team
peers that _organize_ and coordonate things - it's not because it does
not stand out yet that a QA team can't be setup at all as such (look
at marketing and communication teams - they are not there yet, but
that doesn't prevent to work for it slowly).



Have a great week-end,

Romain