DMB: Proposal for a different review process

[Brad Figg]

On 08/02/2011 01:12 PM, Dan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 16:04, Chase Douglas<chase.douglas at canonical.com>  wrote:
>> True, but progress sometimes means change. I think this system would
>> work better, and if proven right it could be a model for other boards to
>> adopt. If it's worse, then the DMB can easily switch back. I would also
>> be happy to be a guinea pig for any process changes.
>
> I echo Chase's opinion in this regard; we should remain flexible in
> adapting our approval processes.
>
> The only thing I add is that we should be cognizant of building a
> timeout into the process using Launchpad so that applications don't
> "spin indefinitely," e.g., "the stale five-digit Launchpad bug
> report."
>
> Cheers,
> -Dan
>

You could use the model the kernel team is using for tracking workflow for
SRU kernels. We have a project set up and a set of custom series that are
used for tracking the workflow. A "bot" runs at regular intervals sending
out nags if necessary or changing the status of a workflow item as previous
dependencies are met.

For an example, take a look at any of the bugs referenced on the report:
http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/kernel-sru-workflow.html .

Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com