Rochelle Grober wrote: > Thierry Carrez wrote: >> One question I have is whether we'd need to keep the "QA" project team at >> all. Personally I think it would create confusion to keep it around, for no >> gain. >> SIGs code contributors get voting rights for the TC anyway, and SIGs are free >> to ask for space at the PTG... so there is really no reason (imho) to keep a >> "QA" project team in parallel to the SIG ? > > Well, you can get rid of the "QA Project Team" but you would then need to > replace it with something like the Tempest Project, or perhaps the Test > Project. You still need a PTL and cores to write, review and merge tempest > fixes and upgrades, along with some of the tests. The Interop Guideline > tests are part of Tempest because being there provides oversight on the style > and quality of the code of those tests. We still need that.
SIGs can totally produce some code (and have review teams), but I agree that in this case this code is basically a part of "the product" (rather than a tool produced by guild of practitioners) and therefore makes sense to be kept in an upstream project team. Let's keep things the way they are, while we work out other changes that may trigger other organizational shuffles (like reusing our project infrastructure beyond just OpenStack). I wonder if we should not call the SIG under a different name to reduce the confusion between QA-the-project-team and QA-the-SIG. Collaborative Testing SIG? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
