2010/10/29 Igor Stoppa <igor.sto...@nokia.com>: > While the goal is obviously to be as open as possible, it's a fact hat > some _HW_ companies might get - rightfully - touchy if their data is > published in an uncontrolled way. > <snip> > > #8474 was a mistake in the sense that it should have not gone public at > all - at least not now. And the following glitch closed-public-closed > was another thing that could have been avoided. <snip> > > This is not peculiar to MeeGo and affects also other open projects (see > kernel vs ACPI bios) where eventually bug tracking hits the wall of non > public IPs and the. > <snip>
> The only difference is that here we are addressing end-to-end use cases > with all the bugs kept in one single repository and therefore some > access control must be exerted. As such, there's really not much issue about hiding some things, but we need procedures to handle these kind of situations, publically described - people are much much more inclined to accept things if they're documented. We can have a win-win situation by having more community in the bugzilla, so people feel free to discuss the entire platform from top to bottom. 8474 is a nightmare because currently, as stated in http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/HandsetTestReport/1.2_N900Acceptance20101028 , [1.2] "org.oFono" service can not be found on Dbus, which causes modem power on fail. This blocks N900 images naturally and probably also others. This could be handled much better since there's obviously a deeper issue beyond 'modem power on fail' and -that- bug could be forked and made 'secret'. So, I propose the following procedure: * A field, "Private conversation wished", with Proposed/Approved/Rejected like in the 1.1 release blocker system When the vendor confidentiality/private conversation is granted, QA contacts proposer, creates a bug with the participants wished in the conversation in CC, marks it secret with only access to those in CC (or later added). The bug is marked as a blocker for the original bug and when people access it, it is marked as that private conversation has been requested. The participants are performing their conversation in that bug. This system can also be used in case of reporting bugs with private information. Think browser crash with pornography in the current tab. Just don't get things to a point where we require a NDA to help admin the bugzilla. Think that in the future, Linux Foundation, Intel, Nokia, Acer and many others has to work together to make that central piece of -community infrastructure- work properly. So maybe we should instead help in MeeGo with central functions to say "export/move this bug to bugzilla instance http://bugzilla.momcorp.com"; where private talks can go on. And the same from the products bugzilla's vendors build, think Nokia MeeGo exporting a bug to MeeGo.com. Best regards, Carsten Munk MeeGo Nokia N900 hardware adaptation maintainer _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
