[ros-dev] TC function description: opening discussion prior to vote

Casper Hornstrup ch at csh-consult.dk
Wed Oct 26 00:11:31 CEST 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-dev-bounces at reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces at reactos.org] On Behalf Of Ge van Geldorp
> Sent: 25. oktober 2005 23:17
> To: 'ReactOS Development List'
> Subject: [ros-dev] TC function description: opening discussion prior to vote
> There was some confusion and disagreement about the Testing Coordinator
> function description recently. The best way to solve it seems to be a vote.
> With the new voting procedure established and 0.2.8 (almost) out the door,
> this seems a good time to start the voting process. Our (draft) constitution
> calls for a 5 day discussion period, followed by a 5 day voting period. This
> email starts the 5 day discussion period. Preferred location for the
> discussion is the ros-dev mailing list, since all developers have easy
> access to that. At the end of the discussion, I'll post a call for votes to
> the mailing list and create the vote on the forum.

7 days actually, unless specified otherwise.

> We have two proposals for the TC function description, A and B. A is the
> original function description. Proposal B is almost the same, the only
> difference is that the TC does not have the authority to block a release.
> This is the motion I would like to vote on:
> "Do you want to:
> A) set the function description for the TC role as described in
> http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/ReactOS_Testing_Coordinator or
> B) set the function description for the TC role as described in
> http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/ReactOS_Testing_Coordinator_Alternate"
> Gé van Geldorp.

[CSH] Both A and B would violate the constitution if we agree to it.
It says a vote can override any decision or action made by any project member.

This paragraph violates it:
"The TC has final say over the priority of a bug. By his election, the developers and board members have agreed to trust in his
judgement related to bug priorities, and must not hinder any legitimate efforts that the TC is attempting in order to prioritize
bugs. "

I believe the whole paragraph is void. The TC (and any other project member) can
do almost anything (including changing priority of a bug and attempting to block
a release). All the draft constitution asks for, is that every registered project
member is given an opportunity to object (and call for a vote on the subject if needed).

I'm not sure what this sentence implies:
"The TC's tools include complete access over Bugzilla, as well as a team of testers which respond directly to the TC."


More information about the Ros-dev mailing list