<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
All: My only comment is that it seems that #2 would certainly lengthen meeting times. I myself don't object to this as I do not currently have a job, but one of these days that may impede my ability to make said meetings.<br><br>> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:47:21 -0500<br>> Subject: ProvenTesters Sponsorship<br>> From: maxamillion@fedoraproject.org<br>> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org<br>> <br>> Hello testers!<br>> <br>> I wanted to open a conversation on the list about how we want to as a<br>> group handle sponsorship. I wanted to propose two ideas I had and<br>> leave the floor open for other suggestions.<br>> <br>> 1) Allow the sponsors/mentors to individually decide upon new<br>> proventesters FAS group menbers when they feel the person they are<br>> mentoring is "ready"<br>> 2) Have a vote process such that when a proventester-to-be (i.e.-<br>> currently being mentored) is considered familiar enough with the<br>> processes by their mentor and has shown a track record of good testing<br>> practices that they are to present their formal request to the current<br>> proventesters at a QA meeting and then a vote is given?<br>> <br>> The way it is currently outlined in the wiki[0] leans more the<br>> direction of option 2 but I wanted to bring it up as I think each<br>> option has some benefits. I like option 1 because the mentor is going<br>> to be the one who ultimately has (or should have) the closest working<br>> relationship with the person they are mentoring and therefore would be<br>> the best judge upon when they are "ready." I however also like option<br>> 2 because it feels like a more formal process and allows for some more<br>> uniformity on how decisions are made, allows for the group as a<br>> community to constructively critique their peers as well as offers a<br>> little more oversight in the process.<br>> <br>> I also wanted to point out concerns I have with each. Option 1 I feel<br>> could spawn some feeling of chaos where people are getting added<br>> "willy nilly" (cheesy saying, I know ... ) and I worry that Option 2<br>> could run us into the situation where we could be preventing testers<br>> from joining in with their critpath contributions (example: request<br>> comes in on a Tuesday, we have to cancel the meeting the following<br>> Monday for some reason .... 2 weeks go by for sponsorship in FAS).<br>> <br>> Just my thoughts, please reply with questions, comments, and if need<br>> be ... snide remarks ;)<br>> <br>> -AdamM<br>> <br>> [0] - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters<br>> <br>> -- <br>> http://maxamillion.googlepages.com<br>> ---------------------------------------------------------<br>> () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail<br>> /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments<br>> -- <br>> test mailing list<br>> test@lists.fedoraproject.org<br>> To unsubscribe: <br>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test<br>                                            <br /><hr />Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2' target='_new'>See how.</a></body>
</html>