Hello all testers out there!
I somehow got it in my mind that we were calling the ProvenTesters group ProvenPackagers even though I new good and well that such a FAS group already exists and is overseen by FESCo. So here we are with round 2 and a correct naming structure. I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.
Original email here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089752.html New wiki page here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!
-AdamM
It seems to me that critical path packages would benefit from non-Proven Testers giving advisory feedback into the system, even if it isn't automatically counted. The more people that do testing, the better, and packagers can manually evaluate comments by new testers. It just seems better to have those comments which may or may not influence the decision, than to ignore potential feedback from people who actually care enough to test and report back.
-B.
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 12:42 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
It seems to me that critical path packages would benefit from non-Proven Testers giving advisory feedback into the system, even if it isn't automatically counted. The more people that do testing, the better, and packagers can manually evaluate comments by new testers. It just seems better to have those comments which may or may not influence the decision, than to ignore potential feedback from people who actually care enough to test and report back.
This will be the case, the feedback from proventesters is just afforded higher value in Bodhi. Non-proventesters can still provide feedback.
On 03/29/2010 11:12 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all testers out there!
I somehow got it in my mind that we were calling the ProvenTesters group ProvenPackagers even though I new good and well that such a FAS group already exists and is overseen by FESCo. So here we are with round 2 and a correct naming structure. I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.
Original email here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089752.html New wiki page here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!
-AdamM
In the wiki in number 4, I am not clear as to who is picking a mentor. Is it the person who wants to be a proven tester, or is it a proven tester who wants to be a mentor. Also, should the mentor be a proven tester or actually a proven packager as the step indicates?
Sincerely,
Clyde Kunkel
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7734@cox.net wrote:
On 03/29/2010 11:12 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all testers out there!
I somehow got it in my mind that we were calling the ProvenTesters group ProvenPackagers even though I new good and well that such a FAS group already exists and is overseen by FESCo. So here we are with round 2 and a correct naming structure. I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.
Original email here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089752.html New wiki page here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!
-AdamM
In the wiki in number 4, I am not clear as to who is picking a mentor. Is it the person who wants to be a proven tester, or is it a proven tester who wants to be a mentor. Also, should the mentor be a proven tester or actually a proven packager as the step indicates?
Sincerely,
Clyde Kunkel
Mentor should be a proven tester, and the person wishing to be mentored/sponsored will be making the request.
I've updated the wiki page taking into account comments/concerns.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft NOTE: We will need to setup a component in trac to handle this application process and there will be details on how to do so once that is setup (if it does end up being how we would want to do this).
More feedback welcome!!! :) -AdamM
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 10:12 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Original email here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089752.html New wiki page here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!
Placing the Critpath definition ahead of everything else makes reading the page a bit confusing and disjoint.
Is the CLA really required? We don't require the CLA for people to put test results on the wiki or in bugzilla, why would we for Bodhi? Widen that net!
Should mention attending a bugzappers or QA meeting regularly if able.
Is the FAS group "ProvenTesters" or "proventesters" ?
All people are able to add karma to bodhi updates, however for crit-path packages, karma from this elevated group is required, plus additional karma from anybody. It almost sounds like you're saying you have to be in this group in order to give any karma at all.
Critical Path Wranglers is first mentioned 2/3rd of the way through the page, and isn't defined. Leftovers from previous drafts?
I like where this is going though!
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 10:12 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all testers out there!
I somehow got it in my mind that we were calling the ProvenTesters group ProvenPackagers even though I new good and well that such a FAS group already exists and is overseen by FESCo. So here we are with round 2 and a correct naming structure. I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.
Original email here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089752.html New wiki page here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!
"Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1" <-- the official name is Branched, you can just say 'Fedora Branched', and link to the Branched page - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched . You can put a little explanation of what Branched is in brackets if you feel it necessary, I guess.
I think the way the page starts off with the 'what is Critical Path?' question is a bit jarring. I'd start with 'What are Quality Assurance Proven Testers?' and explain critical path either just by linking to the page, or as a sub-note in that section, not give it its own section.
On the other hand, I'd start a new section for "The following steps are imperative to join the QA Proven Testers:". 'How to join' is different from 'What it is', to me. The explanation of the group could be a bit more extended, and there could be a bit more sell on why you'd want to join up.
Step 3 is a bit worrying; it's a very vague 'roadblock' (how do I know when I'm sufficiently 'involved' to move on to step 4?) I'd probably ditch step 3 and go straight to step 4. If we're requiring mentoring, the mentor can always act as a filter for someone who's just joined and doesn't have a clue what they're doing, and suggest they do some more 'appropriate' activities before becoming a proven tester.
I wouldn't have "ProvenTesters FAS Group" as a separate section. It can just flow on from the above text, if it's part of a 'How to join' section.
The line "The QA group within FAS will grant the ability to add karma inside of Bodhi to the Critical Path packages within Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1." seems out of place - is it an orphan?
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote: <SNIP>
"Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1" <-- the official name is Branched, you can just say 'Fedora Branched', and link to the Branched page - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched . You can put a little explanation of what Branched is in brackets if you feel it necessary, I guess.
Fixed in the wiki page.
I think the way the page starts off with the 'what is Critical Path?' question is a bit jarring. I'd start with 'What are Quality Assurance Proven Testers?' and explain critical path either just by linking to the page, or as a sub-note in that section, not give it its own section.
Agreed. It was just written that way because it was my flow of thought when I was calling the group "Critical Path Wranglers." I've edited to page to reflect this change.
On the other hand, I'd start a new section for "The following steps are imperative to join the QA Proven Testers:". 'How to join' is different from 'What it is', to me. The explanation of the group could be a bit more extended, and there could be a bit more sell on why you'd want to join up.
I added a little bit to the explanation of that what the FAS group is/does. Let me know what you think.
Step 3 is a bit worrying; it's a very vague 'roadblock' (how do I know when I'm sufficiently 'involved' to move on to step 4?) I'd probably ditch step 3 and go straight to step 4. If we're requiring mentoring, the mentor can always act as a filter for someone who's just joined and doesn't have a clue what they're doing, and suggest they do some more 'appropriate' activities before becoming a proven tester.
Step 3 is now removed
I wouldn't have "ProvenTesters FAS Group" as a separate section. It can just flow on from the above text, if it's part of a 'How to join' section.
merged into the "how to join" section
The line "The QA group within FAS will grant the ability to add karma inside of Bodhi to the Critical Path packages within Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1." seems out of place - is it an orphan?
That verbage was a little off and has been clarified (at least in my mind, but verification from others is welcome!)
-- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net
-- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Current draft available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
All feedback welcome, thanks for the review!
-AdamM
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:48 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
<SNIP> > "Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1" <-- the official name is Branched, you can > just say 'Fedora Branched', and link to the Branched page - > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched . You can put a little > explanation of what Branched is in brackets if you feel it necessary, I > guess. >
Fixed in the wiki page.
Actually, now I think about it, the group is intended to be used for stable releases too. Should we write it as if that's already in place? Something like:
"The Proven Testers are a dedicated group of the Fedora Quality Assurance Community who work towards making sure updated Critical Path packages for stable Fedora releases and the upcoming stable release ('Branched') are not broken"?
The line "The QA group within FAS will grant the ability to add karma inside of Bodhi to the Critical Path packages within Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1." seems out of place - is it an orphan?
That verbage was a little off and has been clarified (at least in my mind, but verification from others is welcome!)
I think it should say 'ProvenTesters group', not 'QA group'. The point of the proventesters project is to fulfill this role (of giving 'weighted' feedback); the way Bodhi currently uses the QA and releng groups to do this is just a short-term bodge. When we put ProvenTesters in place, it will be members of that group whose feedback is weighted, not QA/releng members.
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:48 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
Current draft available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
All feedback welcome, thanks for the review!
Still lists the CLA as required, yet I can't come up with a reason why.
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:34 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:48 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
Current draft available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters:Draft
All feedback welcome, thanks for the review!
Still lists the CLA as required, yet I can't come up with a reason why.
Oh, yes, I agree there - I don't think we need to require CLA for this.
-
Adam Miller -
Adam Williamson -
Christopher Beland -
Clyde E. Kunkel -
Jesse Keating