Quality Management in PA?

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

Hi everyone,
I'd like to bring a topic to the table which I personally care a lot 
about (as you may have noticed from my constant nagging about bugs ;) ):
Technical quality. In the early stages of a project, technical quality 
probably doesn't play such a big role. In these stages, it's important 
to showcase innovation and people forgive you if things don't run 100% 
smoothly yet.
We did exceptionally well on the showcasing innovation part, and I think 
we are now at a point where technical quality (as in "a minimum of bugs 
or performance issues") matters more and more.

That's why I think we should start approaching technical quality in a 
more structured way. Right now our bugzilla is quite messy, with many 
bugs which have long been fixed still with the "unconfirmed" status, 
some bugs in the Files sprint wiki page but not in bugzilla etc.

I was really impressed by Jeroen van Meeuwen's talk "KDE Releases That 
Just Work™" at Akademy (http://akademy2012.kde.org/node/33). I don't 
think we need such sophisticated processes yet, but I think any steps in 
that direction could be beneficial to Plasma Active.

Therefore, I'd volunteer to take the responsibility of quality manager 
(or whatever we call that position in KDE) for Plasma Active. Duties for 
this position in my opinion include:
- Triaging bugs
- Assigning confirmed bugs if possible
- Retesting bugs marked as fixed and closing them if they actually are
- Collecting bugs that are related to a sprint's focus topic
- Marking release blockers when releases are imminent

Do you think such a position would be beneficial for Plasma Active at 
this point, and if so, do you think I should do it or someone else?

Cheers,
Thomas