* Thomas R. Jones [26. May 2009]: > I have been following the openvas community for some time as a silent > observer. I'd like to know if there is a formal constraint for CR > processing. Seemingly a developer feels as though a particular CR > needs implementation than a he/she initiates a "vote". A project of > such importance and structure should be formally represented and > maintained. This renders this project in a less than professional and > exemplary light----which it deserves.
I agree with Thomas. Although the process works as it is, a little more formalization and guidelines surely would not hurt and might lead to a quicker implementation of CRs. There are a few things that are know in the community, but have not been written down yet. Topics I would like to see documented are: - Where should the call for votes be announced? - Who should be able to announce it? - How long should the voting period last? - Should we document who is working on which CR? Thomas, I'm looking forward to suggestions; it might be useful for you (and us) if you could update the section in the compendium (see http://www.openvas.org/compendium/management-of-openvas-change-requests.html) to reflect the status quo. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the lists or on IRC. As Jan said, keep in mind that the process has to be manageable with the resources at hand. I guess a good strategy would be to take the current process as a starting point. Regards, Michael -- Michael Wiegand | OpenPGP: D7D049EC | Intevation GmbH - www.intevation.de Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
pgp5u6yqbiaJ5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvas-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-discuss
