[Foundation-l] tech team - content community bottleneck

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Jan 12, 2008 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How should the devs know which communities have an
> > Arbcom that needs to approve the bug?  I think any
> > system put in here needs to, by default, not interfere
> > with the devs doing their work.  Giving communities
> > more opportunities to raise a flag before
> > implementaion is good.  But requiring the devs check
> > with X before every implementation, or any process
> > external to Bugzilla, is bad.
>
> The devs only make these kind of changes if someone asks them to, so
> if the rule is made that only ArbComs (or crats/admins if there is no
> ArbCom) can make such requests then the devs don't have to check with
> anyone, they just have to verify that the person asking really is a
> member of the project's ArbCom, which isn't that difficult. It's
> certainly easier than trying to work out if there's a consensus for
> the change.

So few projects have arbcoms that it's unreasonable to include
specific mention of them into any foundation-wide policy. The current
method of asking for a bug is decent, requiring a link to be posted to
a page where consensus is displayed. If the devs don't want to waste
the time/effort in ensuring that consensus truely was acheived, then
there definitely should be some kind of team that would verify it for
them.

--Andrew Whitworth