On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 16:52 -0400, James Laska wrote:
Will leave this as a discussion topic next week. The open questions
for
me are ...
1. What are our expectations for proventesters? Kamil's package
update test plan [1] seems like a great start. What other
guidance can we give proventesters? I'd like to avoid saying,
"please just test stuff"
2. How to determine whether someone who is requesting proventesters
membership has the right stuff? Can we document the criteria
that will be used? Bugzilla stats (new bugs, traiged bugs),
bodhi karma supplied, mailing list contributions ...
I tend to approach this kind of thing quite liberally; I don't think
it's worth sweating too hard about rejecting people, usually I consider
the group as a tool for smoothing out the process if problems appear.
I'd broadly expect to approve most people who apply, and the group
membership acts as a check on their work; if we find someone is being
malicious (or, unlikely, just really bad and not able to improve their
work), we can always take them out of the group again.
In general I reckon anyone who has the motivation to read the
instructions through and apply to the group probably is going to be
amenable to working co-operatively with the rest of the group and
working in line with whatever procedures we agree, which is all we
really require.
But that's just my approach, there are others :)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net