2:23 p.m.
Hi, folks. So this one keeps popping up for individual people, and we
keep doing a quick band-aid when anyone needs group membership...but we
may as well just bite the bullet and do it properly.
Fedora QA has always been pretty informally organized, we've generally
not wanted to build a big heavy organizational structure with
hierarchies and bits of paper to sign and stuff. One facet of this is
that we don't really have an 'official' Fedora QA FAS group. There is a
'qa' group in FAS, but it has very few members, and we haven't ever
worked on the assumption that the people in it are the 'real' QA people
or anything.
For our purposes we don't really have any incredible need for a QA group
in FAS, but there are some things in Fedora which require you to be a
member of a FAS group besides cla_signed - voting in some elections, for
instance, and getting a fedorapeople.org space. It seems unfortunate
that QA contributors don't get these things unless they get themselves
added to another group.
So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go ahead and stick
everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the FAS
'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure sufficient
people within and outside RH have moderator status in the qa group, and
then those of us who are mods can just add people appropriately. Anyone
who files karma regularly, or validation test results, or posts to
test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything like that - let's just
stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future we can just say
'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA person membership in
the QA group at any time, and when someone sends a self-introduction
mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA group mods should stick
that person in the group'.
How does that sound? Seems like something we can just get done already.
Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the admins
of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some more appropriate people
admins and moderators instead. I'll do that right now, since it's
clearly the right thing to do...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:32 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 12:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the
admins
of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some more appropriate people
admins and moderators instead. I'll do that right now, since it's
clearly the right thing to do...
For now I've made me, tflink, kparal and viking-ice administrators and
cmurf a moderator, just as raptor-proofing.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:55 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 20:32, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 12:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the admins
> >of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
> >wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some more appropriate people
> >admins and moderators instead. I'll do that right now, since it's
> >clearly the right thing to do...
For now I've made me, tflink, kparal and viking-ice administrators and
cmurf a moderator, just as raptor-proofing.
Which is entirely irrelevant since this group should not be revived so
stop with this nonsense already.
JBG
2:24 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 12:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the admins
> of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
> wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some more appropriate people
> admins and moderators instead. I'll do that right now, since it's
> clearly the right thing to do...
For now I've made me, tflink, kparal and viking-ice administrators and
cmurf a moderator, just as raptor-proofing.
You could consider the same style sponsorship system that the main
packagers group uses so there's then no real need for raptor proofed
admins as it would sort of be self administoring.
Peter
2:40 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 20:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
How does that sound? Seems like something we can just get done already.
It sounds like a bad plan revoke the QA group previously occupied and
manage by RH staff only and I'm strongly against that.
So why are you planning to revert what we already had decide we did not
need.
What's your end game with this move?
JBG
3 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 20:40 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 20:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> How does that sound? Seems like something we can just get done already.
>
It sounds like a bad plan revoke the QA group previously occupied and
manage by RH staff only and I'm strongly against that.
So why are you planning to revert what we already had decide we did not
need.
What's your end game with this move?
"Let QA people have fedorapeople.org space", basically. danofsatx is the
latest, but there've been three or four people recently who started
contributing to QA and then found they wanted one of the things in
Fedora you can get by being a member of a FAS group.
Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group, Fedora
as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a bar
to entry for some things, so it seems like we're putting ourselves at a
disadvantage by not putting our members in our FAS group.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:35 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 21:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group,
None what so ever.
Fedora
as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a bar
to entry for some things,
Not with us and never should be.
so it seems like we're putting ourselves at a
disadvantage by not putting our members in our FAS group.
No we are not and we are putting ourselves in advantage by not doing so.
JBG
3:40 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 21:35 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group,
None what so ever.
Actually, there is one, I forgot to mention it: we can have 'qa' inherit
'fedorabugs', which would give all QA members 'editbugs' privileges.
> Fedora
> as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a bar
> to entry for some things,
Not with us and never should be.
We're part of Fedora, not some kind of independent entity. Having
fedorapeople space is a useful thing for QA members. Being able to vote
in elections is a useful thing for QA members. Currently, you have to
find some other way to get yourself added to a group in order to get
those things, which means you have to apply to some other group or find
someone with moderator privileges for a group and persuade them to add
you, just so you can 'game the system'. Why is it a bad thing if we just
put QA people in the QA group so they can have access to those things?
> so it seems like we're putting ourselves at a
> disadvantage by not putting our members in our FAS group.
No we are not and we are putting ourselves in advantage by not doing so.
Could you please explain what advantage we're giving ourselves by not
putting people in a FAS group?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:45 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:35:56 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group,
None what so ever.
> Fedora
> as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a
> bar to entry for some things,
Not with us and never should be.
> so it seems like we're putting ourselves at a
> disadvantage by not putting our members in our FAS group.
No we are not and we are putting ourselves in advantage by not doing
so.
JBG
For those of us who haven't been with QA for even a year yet, can you
give a brief "too long; didn't read" synopsis of your reasoning and
where it stems from? Without some form of background it's hard to infer
what your reasoning is.
Thanks!
// Roshi
4:06 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 21:45, Mike Ruckman wrote:
For those of us who haven't been with QA for even a year yet, can
you
give a brief "too long; didn't read" synopsis of your reasoning and
where it stems from? Without some form of background it's hard to infer
what your reasoning is.
You can look at the archive why we initially dropped the QA group and
the reasoning why we should not revive the QA group is related to the
future and I ain't talking about the future WG's "providing" us with but
an actual future and direction for the project be heading into.
Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix it
in the wrong place...
JBG
4:08 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 22:06:44 +0000,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix
it in the wrong place...
Access to those reources are controlled by group membership. So we either
add people to a group or get the people responsible for the resources to
drop the requirement on group access. I think the former makes more sense
than the latter in this case.
4:14 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 22:08, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 22:06:44 +0000,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix
> it in the wrong place...
Access to those reources are controlled by group membership. So we
either add people to a group or get the people responsible for the
resources to drop the requirement on group access. I think the former
makes more sense than the latter in this case.
Still approaching and trying to solve the underlying cause the wrong way...
JBG
4:11 p.m.
On Dec 16, 2013, at 3:06 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:45, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> For those of us who haven't been with QA for even a year yet, can you
> give a brief "too long; didn't read" synopsis of your reasoning and
> where it stems from? Without some form of background it's hard to infer
> what your reasoning is.
You can look at the archive why we initially dropped the QA group and the reasoning why
we should not revive the QA group is related to the future and I ain't talking about
the future WG's "providing" us with but an actual future and direction for
the project be heading into.
Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix it in the
wrong place…
Seems to me it'll either be sorta useful, or it'll be completely utterly useless
yet still benign. *shrug*
Chris Murphy
4:12 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:06 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:45, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> For those of us who haven't been with QA for even a year yet, can you
> give a brief "too long; didn't read" synopsis of your reasoning and
> where it stems from? Without some form of background it's hard to infer
> what your reasoning is.
You can look at the archive why we initially dropped the QA group and
Do you have specific links for that? "the archive" is several years big,
it's probably easier to find if you were there at the time and remember
the approximate date or the thread title or something.
the reasoning why we should not revive the QA group is related to the
future and I ain't talking about the future WG's "providing" us with
but
an actual future and direction for the project be heading into.
Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix it
in the wrong place...
What, in your estimation, would be the right place? Instead of just
saying 'no', can you provide an alternative solution to the problem?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:33 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 22:12, Adam Williamson wrote:
What, in your estimation, would be the right place? Instead of just
saying 'no', can you provide an alternative solution to the problem?
Solution to fix this lies not within in us ( QA ) the alternative
solution requires a real change in the project not dressing the emperor
in new clothes which the WG proposal does.
JBG
4:44 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:33:05 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:12, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What, in your estimation, would be the right place? Instead of just
> saying 'no', can you provide an alternative solution to the problem?
Solution to fix this lies not within in us ( QA ) the alternative
solution requires a real change in the project not dressing the
emperor in new clothes which the WG proposal does.
JBG
How does the WG tie into getting people like danofsatx access to
Fedorapeople and the other access they could use?
// Roshi
5:05 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:33 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:12, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What, in your estimation, would be the right place? Instead of just
> saying 'no', can you provide an alternative solution to the problem?
Solution to fix this lies not within in us ( QA ) the alternative
solution requires a real change in the project not dressing the emperor
in new clothes which the WG proposal does.
Well, I mean, I agree there are potentially other approaches to granting
things like fedorapeople access and so on, but any change like that
would be a big one which would likely involve lots of proposing and
arguing and take a lot of time.
I personally am not interested in driving such a change. The mechanics
of FAS group membership and so on are not, in and of themselves,
interesting to me, so this isn't something I want to work on. All I'm
trying to do is remove a speedbump for new QA group members that we keep
encountering, in the most simple and obvious way: currently the way the
Fedora project is set up, it expects members of Fedora groups/projects
like QA to be in a FAS group, so let's just do that.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7:12 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Let me make sure I have this correct. {I had to read 20+ emails to
condense it, I may have missed something}
PROBLEM STATEMENT: There exists and will continue to exist persons who
participate in and assist the QA process in quantifiable ways. These
persons would like access to the fedorapeople space to assist them in
assisting QA. Presently access to fedorapeople space requires
membership in an FAS Group other than CLA signed.
ADAM'S SOLUTION: Open up the presently mostly idle QA-FAS Group and
add these people granting them fedorapeople access.
JOHANN'S OBJECTION: The group was idled eons past for valid reasons
{not elaborated, but still valid} and ressurecting the group is not
advisable.
JOHANN'S SOLUTION: None given yet, that I can determine, just doesn't
like Adam's.
OTHER SOLUTIONS PROPOSED: Haven't read any other solutions proposed.
If that wraps things up, lets either propose an alternative to Adam's
idea or move forward with Adams. Reading 20 emails on this problem is
enough.
Sincerely,
Bob Lightfoot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSr6TrAAoJEKqgpLIhfz3XiOUH/RHJTLnmWXc/lwwdrMeuNJc5
LGFw7RrlowDsc1YWTKj7m0Ae8cK5bRKYz1KCBvHSDgnGou6otaP09NqEipTxw5Fd
cQTpulOOWd0lhpyzKx9VLlN4Flro7ZRrMBIcXUa8chGLPd/fff40sqt/+mZBd5RT
cBUajd/9QKo3JpCb1AV6UstEVe7djFRXpbKZMKAjCx7x9HRxpn33ja1x8O/jhMUW
k11t/JpD2djGBjWjduJEwTW3q/gj7aZdn6qXWkyxtlmHBUdyh5DQPx8dAQUPyxaM
dMURM+OQHwmkg1uXNQqwl9ZxpScOCQXMlnODO4c0vECZSwc5p94dLD10sbXhK1s=
=kl7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:15 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 20:12 -0500, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Let me make sure I have this correct. {I had to read 20+ emails to
condense it, I may have missed something}
PROBLEM STATEMENT: There exists and will continue to exist persons who
participate in and assist the QA process in quantifiable ways. These
persons would like access to the fedorapeople space to assist them in
assisting QA. Presently access to fedorapeople space requires
membership in an FAS Group other than CLA signed.
fedorapeople.org space is just an example - there are others, the one
that leapt to mind was elections, but I think there are yet others
beyond that. And the FAS group would also let us grant all QA folks
'editbugs' privileges too, which can come in handy.
Other than that, good summary :)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
8:07 p.m.
Thank you for the summary Bob. I was necessary.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 20:12 -0500, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
Let me make sure I have this correct. {I had to read 20+ emails to
condense it, I may have missed something}
PROBLEM STATEMENT: There exists and will continue to exist persons who
participate in and assist the QA process in quantifiable ways. These
persons would like access to the fedorapeople space to assist them in
assisting QA. Presently access to fedorapeople space requires
membership in an FAS Group other than CLA signed.
The entire project, including infra uses FAS groups to grant volunteers
access to various resources. I see no reason why QA shouldn't use this
too.
ADAM'S SOLUTION: Open up the presently mostly idle QA-FAS Group and
add these people granting them fedorapeople access.
+1 for this.
JOHANN'S OBJECTION: The group was idled eons past for valid reasons
{not elaborated, but still valid} and ressurecting the group is not
advisable.
I haven't found the reasons. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time
to go through the archives and hunt them down. A one sentence summary
would be helpful :)
If the issue is to do with inactive members, it's something all
volunteer projects need to tackle. As long as the number of active
members is more than inactive ones, or even sufficient to handle QA
tasks properly, the inactive ones can just be left alone. Mods can prune
them out when they have nothing else to do.
If the issue is some shortcoming in the design of FAS or how the project
is structured, I'd be most interested in listening to it at the right
channels: infra probably?
JOHANN'S SOLUTION: None given yet, that I can determine, just doesn't
like Adam's.
OTHER SOLUTIONS PROPOSED: Haven't read any other solutions proposed.
If that wraps things up, lets either propose an alternative to Adam's
idea or move forward with Adams. Reading 20 emails on this problem is
enough.
+1 to Adam's proposal. I see no "game" here. Let's not turn Adam into
Moriarty ;)
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG
10:26 p.m.
Ahoy,
So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?). I've been +1 for this
idea for quite some time now.
Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I don't
remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely recall James
Laska telling me it had some purpose or other when I asked him about it (oddly
enough so I could be in more than the CLA group).
John
10:45 p.m.
So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go ahead
and stick
everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the > >
FAS
'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure sufficient
people within and outside RH have moderator status in the qa group, and
then those of us who are mods can just add people appropriately. Anyone
who files karma regularly, or validation test results, or posts to
test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything like that - let's just
stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future we can just say
'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA person membership in
the QA group at any time, and when someone sends a self-introduction
mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA group mods should stick
that person in the group'.
If we can do every QA stuff without being a part of QA group then
what's the use of creating a QA group
--
Akshay vyas
(http://www.gofedora.in)
2 a.m.
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 10:15 +0530, Akshay Vyas wrote:
> So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go
ahead and stick
> everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the >
> FAS
> 'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure sufficient
> people within and outside RH have moderator status in the qa group, and
> then those of us who are mods can just add people appropriately. Anyone
> who files karma regularly, or validation test results, or posts to
> test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything like that - let's just
> stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future we can just say
> 'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA person membership in
> the QA group at any time, and when someone sends a self-introduction
> mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA group mods should stick
> that person in the group'.
If we can do every QA stuff without being a part of QA group then
what's the use of creating a QA group
As explained a few times: there are things within Fedora as a whole (not
the QA group) which you need to be a member of a FAS group other than
'cla_done' to get access to - the intent being that only people who are
'members' of Fedora in some way should get them. Space on
fedorapeople.org and voting rights are the two examples I've cited, I
think there may be more than that.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:20 a.m.
As explained a few times: there are things within Fedora as a whole
(not
the QA group) which you need to be a member of a FAS group other than
'cla_done' to get access to - the intent being that only people who are
'members' of Fedora in some way should get them. Space on
fedorapeople.org and voting rights are the two examples I've cited, I
think there may be more than that.
well i think there is some kind of role associated with every group
like ambassadors are suppose to do a promotion and organize events,
adding some one to QA group doesn't make any changes in user
privileges or any other things, well if we talk about fedorapeople.org
or voting then its for every one and there is no group for some
regular voters
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 10:15 +0530, Akshay Vyas wrote:
>> > So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go ahead and
stick
>> > everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the
> > FAS
>> > 'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure
sufficient
>> > people within and outside RH have moderator status in the qa group, and
>> > then those of us who are mods can just add people appropriately. Anyone
>> > who files karma regularly, or validation test results, or posts to
>> > test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything like that - let's just
>> > stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future we can just say
>> > 'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA person membership
in
>> > the QA group at any time, and when someone sends a self-introduction
>> > mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA group mods should stick
>> > that person in the group'.
>>
>> If we can do every QA stuff without being a part of QA group then
>> what's the use of creating a QA group
>
As explained a few times: there are things within Fedora as a whole
(not
the QA group) which you need to be a member of a FAS group other than
'cla_done' to get access to - the intent being that only people who are
'members' of Fedora in some way should get them. Space on
fedorapeople.org and voting rights are the two examples I've cited, I
think there may be more than that.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> test mailing list
> test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
--
Akshay vyas
(http://www.gofedora.in)
11:43 a.m.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Akshay Vyas wrote:
If we can do every QA stuff without being a part of QA group then
what's the use of creating a QA group
How do you STOP people from doing QA, and reporting stuff
either to bugzilla or the mailing list? But I think the issue
is that at least one element of 'every' role for a Fedora
contributor is not open to me (i.e., voting) without some
additional group membership beyond
Looking at my accout page at fedoraproject,org, I show only:
Signed CLA Group (user)
Signers of the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (user)
I have one request not acted upon by a functionally dead sub
project, and recall making another request to another which I
never heard back on ...
but last time that voting time came around, I was unable to do
so.
My participation in making RH derived distributions predates
even the Fedora project itself, having been active since RHL's
inception. I was one of the early if not original 'invited'
cohort of external 'testers-list' members (2001 era as I
recall), former editor of rpm.org, more bug filings thatn I
care to count, the first commit for 'sqlite' when it came in
for RPM purposes, and so forth
Adam, to the extent I am not a formal member of QA group,
please take this as my request for addition to such
-- Russ herrold
1:59 a.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 23:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
Ahoy,
So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?).
You weren't actually in the group when I checked, IIRC, and I didn't
want to start adding many more people until I floated the idea on the
list first. Seems like most everyone is positive about it, so I guess we
(admins/mods) can add more people in the next few days.
I've been +1 for this
idea for quite some time now.
Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I don't
remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely recall James
Laska telling me it had some purpose or other when I asked him about it (oddly
enough so I could be in more than the CLA group).
Thanks for the feedback. I think I checked with James last time this
idea came up, and he said it didn't have a specific purpose any more.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
6:52 a.m.
On þri 17.des 2013 04:26, John Dulaney wrote:
Ahoy,
So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?). I've been +1 for this
idea for quite some time now.
Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I don't
remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely recall James
Laska telling me it had some purpose or other when I asked him about it (oddly
enough so I could be in more than the CLA group).
Purpose and a fact of being//"elitist" group which caused more harm then
good in the QA community and what I'm worried about is that Adam is
resurrecting it for other then purpose after he joined the WG's.
If we agree it serves only the purpose to allow QA members to overcome
other limitation in the project and we ensure that it will *only* serve
and being used for that purpose I'm fine with resurrecting it but as
soon as Adam or any other RH employee starts to mutilate it to serve
it's corporate purpose we put it down.
JBG
5:05 p.m.
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:52:16 +0000
From: johannbg(a)gmail.com
To: test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: let's just use the FAS group already
Purpose and a fact of being "elitist" group which caused more harm then
good in the QA community and what I'm worried about is that Adam is
resurrecting it for other then purpose after he joined the WG's.
If we agree it serves only the purpose to allow QA members to overcome
other limitation in the project and we ensure that it will *only* serve
and being used for that purpose I'm fine with resurrecting it but as
soon as Adam or any other RH employee starts to mutilate it to serve
it's corporate purpose we put it down.
JBG
What do you mean, "mutilate it to serv it's corporate purpose"? Are you
stating that since I now work for Red Hat, I'm evil?
Since I've started working for Red Hat, I've not seen any wanting to
contort Fedora to RH's nefarious ends. In fact, I've seen a lot of effort to
get work done internally into Fedora as quickly as possible so that Fedora
may benefit. I seriously don't understand where you get these ideas from.
Along those lines, now that I work for Red Hat, does that make me evil?
Am I now a corporate minion? You do realize that my job at RH has
nothing to do with Fedora; I continue to be involved with Fedora purely
because I want to. You don't see me slapping my @redhat.com email
around. In fact, the only account I've switched over is my bugzilla account,
and that was purely for convenience.
John
6:15 p.m.
On þri 17.des 2013 23:05, John Dulaney wrote:
What do you mean, "mutilate it to serv it's corporate
purpose"? Are you
stating that since I now work for Red Hat, I'm evil?
No I'm stating that because of the history and that history should not
be allowed to be forgotten and you are not suddenly "evil" you came from
the community just like RH would hire a an upstream developer there is
quite the difference of that and RH inventing " leadership positions"
and plant individuals outside the community in that position which has
happened on more then one occasion here with us as well as project wide.
Not all Red Hat employees care for Fedora and just use it to their and
their teams and RHEL advantage ( just look at the WG effort more closely
) even if it's clearly against the best interest of the project as a
part of their 9 - 5 job and then there are many that do care alot for
Fedora and are working on it on their own free time ( like you are doing
) and are looking out for it's interest within RH.
The work the arm team has been doing becoming primary, is the latest
success lesson in how to do it right in working *with* the community as
well as *for it* from the RH camp and all RH employees as well as
community members that are part of that effort should take pride in that
work.
JBG
5:24 p.m.
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 12:52 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On þri 17.des 2013 04:26, John Dulaney wrote:
> Ahoy,
>
> So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?). I've been +1 for this
> idea for quite some time now.
>
> Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I
don't
> remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely recall James
> Laska telling me it had some purpose or other when I asked him about it (oddly
> enough so I could be in more than the CLA group).
Purpose and a fact of being "elitist" group which caused more harm
then good in the QA community and what I'm worried about is that Adam
is resurrecting it for other then purpose after he joined the WG's.
If we agree it serves only the purpose to allow QA members to overcome
other limitation in the project and we ensure that it will *only*
serve and being used for that purpose I'm fine with resurrecting it
but as soon as Adam or any other RH employee starts to mutilate it to
serve it's corporate purpose we put it down.
So it seems like in the end everyone was OK with the idea, so nirik has
set up the 'fedorabugs' inheritance and I've thrown a bunch of people in
the group to start the ball rolling. I'm sure I left quite a few people
out, I just sorta randomly looked through test@ and threw on every
regular I could see whose FAS name I happen to know.
If you're not in the group yet but would like to be, do just go ahead
and apply - I've changed the group not to be invite-only any more - or
ping any of the admins or sponsors, with your FAS name:
me
cmurf
johann
kparal
robatino
roshi (mike ruckman)
tflink
for now, if anyone else wants to be a sponsor, just ask or something.
seven people should be enough to be going on with :) admins and
sponsors, do go ahead and throw anyone else who obviously ought to be in
the group into it. you can add people just by entering their FAS name
from the group page in FAS.
as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be actually
necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
membership in any way.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
5:27 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 15:24 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 12:52 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On þri 17.des 2013 04:26, John Dulaney wrote:
>
> > Ahoy,
> >
> > So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?). I've been +1 for
this
> > idea for quite some time now.
> >
> > Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I
don't
> > remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely recall James
> > Laska telling me it had some purpose or other when I asked him about it (oddly
> > enough so I could be in more than the CLA group).
>
> Purpose and a fact of being "elitist" group which caused more harm
> then good in the QA community and what I'm worried about is that Adam
> is resurrecting it for other then purpose after he joined the WG's.
>
> If we agree it serves only the purpose to allow QA members to overcome
> other limitation in the project and we ensure that it will *only*
> serve and being used for that purpose I'm fine with resurrecting it
> but as soon as Adam or any other RH employee starts to mutilate it to
> serve it's corporate purpose we put it down.
So it seems like in the end everyone was OK with the idea, so nirik has
set up the 'fedorabugs' inheritance and I've thrown a bunch of people in
the group to start the ball rolling. I'm sure I left quite a few people
out, I just sorta randomly looked through test@ and threw on every
regular I could see whose FAS name I happen to know.
If you're not in the group yet but would like to be, do just go ahead
and apply - I've changed the group not to be invite-only any more - or
ping any of the admins or sponsors, with your FAS name:
me
cmurf
johann
kparal
robatino
roshi (mike ruckman)
tflink
for now, if anyone else wants to be a sponsor, just ask or something.
seven people should be enough to be going on with :) admins and
sponsors, do go ahead and throw anyone else who obviously ought to be in
the group into it. you can add people just by entering their FAS name
from the group page in FAS.
as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be actually
necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
membership in any way.
oh, and group membership gives you 'editbugs' privs in Bugzilla, so you
can do triage.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:51 a.m.
> as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be actually
> necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
> get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
> handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
> to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
> membership in any way.
oh, and group membership gives you 'editbugs' privs in Bugzilla, so you
can do triage.
I like the change with qa group in general. I have a few concerns as well:
1. Since we give people editbugs privileges (I assume that means that you can freely edit
any item in any bug report), we should only accept people we trust and they should be
aware of their powers and what to do (not to do) with them. Since there is no description
box for the group in FAS, we should probably create a wiki page where we describe the
granted powers and responsibilities and link to that. Also there should be a section with
guidelines for sponsors, so that they can easily decide whether to accept an application.
2. Currently the "Rules for Application:" feels like "free voting rights!
free online space! free hot dogs!". I think it should clearly explain that we
don't grant the membership to everyone, we grant it only to people that we see around
often, we know that they do good work, and we know that they won't abuse their new
powers. (Hm, I wonder whether we really want to grant editbugs privs to every single
person who performed a reasonable amount of testing for Fedora. Should these two things be
coupled together? If somebody reported a few bugs, I think it's OK to reward him with
voting rights and such, but he should not get editbugs privs, yet.)
3. I have some experience with translator teams in the past. We also used a group for
giving people extra powers (revert translations and such). I have a bad experience with
free-to-apply groups. I spent a lot of time explaining people that "no, you don't
need to be in the group just to translate software, this is for additional permissions,
and we can add you once you've been around for some time and see that you do good
work" over and over again. It helped us so much to have a short clear description
(explicitly stating that they can do any translator work without being in this group, this
is sooo important) and having it invite-only (a lot of people don't read descriptions
when they see a big Join button). If someone is eligible to be added, you usually know
him, he knows you, and it's easy for him to ping you and ask for a group membership. I
advise here to do the same.
1:02 p.m.
On 12/20/2013 11:51 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be
actually
>> necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
>> get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
>> handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
>> to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
>> membership in any way.
>
> oh, and group membership gives you 'editbugs' privs in Bugzilla, so you
> can do triage.
I like the change with qa group in general. I have a few concerns as well:
1. Since we give people editbugs privileges (I assume that means that you can freely edit
any item in any bug report), we should only accept people we trust and they should be
aware of their powers and what to do (not to do) with them. Since there is no description
box for the group in FAS, we should probably create a wiki page where we describe the
granted powers and responsibilities and link to that. Also there should be a section with
guidelines for sponsors, so that they can easily decide whether to accept an application.
2. Currently the "Rules for Application:" feels like "free voting rights!
free online space! free hot dogs!". I think it should clearly explain that we
don't grant the membership to everyone, we grant it only to people that we see around
often, we know that they do good work, and we know that they won't abuse their new
powers. (Hm, I wonder whether we really want to grant editbugs privs to every single
person who performed a reasonable amount of testing for Fedora. Should these two things be
coupled together? If somebody reported a few bugs, I think it's OK to reward him with
voting rights and such, but he should not get editbugs privs, yet.)
3. I have some experience with translator teams in the past. We also used a group for
giving people extra powers (revert translations and such). I have a bad experience with
free-to-apply groups. I spent a lot of time explaining people that "no, you don't
need to be in the group just to translate software, this is for additional permissions,
and we can add you once you've been around for some time and see that you do good
work" over and over again. It helped us so much to have a short clear description
(explicitly stating that they can do any translator work without being in this group, this
is sooo important) and having it invite-only (a lot of people don't read descriptions
when they see a big Join button). If someone is eligible to be added, you usually know
him, he knows you, and it's easy for him to ping you and ask for a group membership. I
advise here to do the same.
Regarding concern #2 - How about a system wherein folks are admitted to
the QA FAS group pretty much freely, but have to remain an active member
of the QA team for a period of time, say 30 days, to be sponsored into
the fedorabugs FAS group? The QA group itself does not have the editbugs
privilege, whereas the fedorabugs group exists solely to give members of
other groups those editbugs privileges.
I know this sounds too much like the hierarchy we're trying to avoid,
but is anarchy the correct answer? There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
--
Dan Mossor
Systems Engineer at Large
Fedora QA Team Volunteer FAS: dmossor IRC: danofsatx
San Antonio, Texas, USA
1:24 p.m.
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:51 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be
actually
> > necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
> > get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
> > handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
> > to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
> > membership in any way.
>
> oh, and group membership gives you 'editbugs' privs in Bugzilla, so you
> can do triage.
I like the change with qa group in general. I have a few concerns as well:
1. Since we give people editbugs privileges (I assume that means that
you can freely edit any item in any bug report), we should only accept
people we trust and they should be aware of their powers and what to
do (not to do) with them. Since there is no description box for the
group in FAS, we should probably create a wiki page where we describe
the granted powers and responsibilities and link to that. Also there
should be a section with guidelines for sponsors, so that they can
easily decide whether to accept an application.
In theory, you're right. In practice...meeeeh. editbugs privs are more
or less given out like candy; there's 2300+ people in the 'fedorabugs'
group already as things stand. As nirik observed, it's never really been
a problem. Messing up bug reports is not enough fun for trolls,
apparently.
If we want to try and tighten it up a bit we could, but I definitely
don't think we need to be setting high bars, or anything. I'd figure
anyone who's a semi-regular poster here or Bodhi feedback poster or
validation tester or whatever is fine to be approved; anyone for whom
someone would say 'oh, yeah, I know that person, they test stuff.'
2. Currently the "Rules for Application:" feels like
"free voting
rights! free online space! free hot dogs!". I think it should clearly
explain that we don't grant the membership to everyone, we grant it
only to people that we see around often, we know that they do good
work, and we know that they won't abuse their new powers.
See that's more or less what I just said, only somehow it sounds much
more 'forbidding', like you have to pass an exam to get in or something.
I do share viking's concern that this doesn't wind up being some 'elite'
group of testers or something...
(Hm, I wonder whether we really want to grant editbugs privs to
every
single person who performed a reasonable amount of testing for Fedora.
Should these two things be coupled together? If somebody reported a
few bugs, I think it's OK to reward him with voting rights and such,
but he should not get editbugs privs, yet.)
Well, I mean, in an ideal world we'd have some kind of triaging project
that worked. But we've tried that how many times now? :) Since there's
no active triage project, really I think 'everyone in QA gets triage
powers' is the second-best option.
(BTW, in case you're wondering about non-Fedora stuff: AIUI Red Hat
products in BZ are protected from Fedora contributors wielding editbugs
powers somehow or other. I don't think we're going to have Red Hat C*Os
coming down on us for causing their zillion-dollar bug to be sabotaged
or anything).
3. I have some experience with translator teams in the past. We also
used a group for giving people extra powers (revert translations and
such). I have a bad experience with free-to-apply groups. I spent a
lot of time explaining people that "no, you don't need to be in the
group just to translate software, this is for additional permissions,
and we can add you once you've been around for some time and see that
you do good work" over and over again. It helped us so much to have a
short clear description (explicitly stating that they can do any
translator work without being in this group, this is sooo important)
and having it invite-only (a lot of people don't read descriptions
when they see a big Join button). If someone is eligible to be added,
you usually know him, he knows you, and it's easy for him to ping you
and ask for a group membership. I advise here to do the same.
We can do something like that for sure, but yeah, my take is that I
wouldn't want it to be too much of a two-tier system.
I've stuck a meeting agenda item for the group membership stuff in for
Monday, we can chat about it there...maybe you could draft some specific
changes to the current group description texts?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:37 p.m.
On fös 20.des 2013 19:24, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've stuck a meeting agenda item for the group membership stuff
in for
Monday, we can chat about it there...maybe you could draft some specific
changes to the current group description texts?
The only issues that I have been bit concern with is newcomers and for
example the urge to fiddle with the severity levels which are strictly
set by developers themselves and the thing is i'm working on a proposal
for the group were we merge the role of reporter and triager into "QA
community member" ( same individual reports/triage ) so we kinda need to
have everyone with triage privileges so I think we should be able to act
on good faith here and rather remove individuals encase it becomes an
issue, maybe a 3 strike policy or something and or discuss on list/meeting.
JBG
11:08 a.m.
> 1. Since we give people editbugs privileges (I assume that means
that
> you can freely edit any item in any bug report), we should only accept
> people we trust and they should be aware of their powers and what to
> do (not to do) with them. Since there is no description box for the
> group in FAS, we should probably create a wiki page where we describe
> the granted powers and responsibilities and link to that. Also there
> should be a section with guidelines for sponsors, so that they can
> easily decide whether to accept an application.
In theory, you're right. In practice...meeeeh. editbugs privs are more
or less given out like candy; there's 2300+ people in the 'fedorabugs'
group already as things stand. As nirik observed, it's never really been
a problem. Messing up bug reports is not enough fun for trolls,
apparently.
I haven't checked the numbers before replying (shame on me). If we already have so
many people with editprivs and there haven't been any major incidents, I agree
it's easier to have a very permissible policy like the one you proposed and only act
when something goes wrong (removing the person from the group if needed). And we can
always tighten the policy if we have bad experience with it.
3:48 p.m.
On 12/16/2013 03:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group,
None what so ever.
> Fedora
> as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a bar
> to entry for some things,
Not with us and never should be.
> so it seems like we're putting ourselves at a
> disadvantage by not putting our members in our FAS group.
No we are not and we are putting ourselves in advantage by not doing so.
JBG
I may be misinterpreting, but what do you have against volunteers?
Especially since Fedora is a volunteer-driven project?
--
Dan Mossor
Systems Engineer at Large
Fedora QA Team Volunteer FAS: dmossor IRC: danofsatx
San Antonio, Texas, USA
4:06 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 21:57:41 +0000,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:48, Dan Mossor wrote:
>I may be misinterpreting, but what do you have against volunteers?
>Especially since Fedora is a volunteer-driven project?
Dont fall into whatever game Adam is playing by reviving this group.
The game is to treat QA volunteers like other contributors. That way they
don't have to also become packagers (or something else) in order to
participate in Fedora Elections or make use of resources limited to
people who are in more than just the Fedora CLA group. Even though there
may not be QA specific resources restricted by groups, it is still nice
for QA contributors to have access to generic resources normally available
to active Fedora contributors.
4:37 p.m.
On 12/16/2013 04:06 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 21:57:41 +0000,
The game is to treat QA volunteers like other contributors. That way
they don't have to also become packagers (or something else) in order to
participate in Fedora Elections or make use of resources limited to
people who are in more than just the Fedora CLA group. Even though there
may not be QA specific resources restricted by groups, it is still nice
for QA contributors to have access to generic resources normally
available to active Fedora contributors.
I am very new to linux and Fedora community in general but, as I
understand it, I like this idea of QA group very much .... Just another
opinion, I guess.
5:02 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The game is to treat QA volunteers like other contributors.
That way they don't have to also become packagers (or
something else) in order to participate in Fedora Elections
or make use of resources limited to people who are in more
than just the Fedora CLA group. ...
fwiw, this list is about the only Fedora list I actively read
anymore in near real time. I am not directly interested in
the various other roads into gaining 'elector' capacity
because of the time commitments implied
If there is a 'game afoot' by Adam, it is one of which approve
if the end result is as Bruno outlines
-- Russ herrold
4:10 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 21:57 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 21:48, Dan Mossor wrote:
> I may be misinterpreting, but what do you have against volunteers?
> Especially since Fedora is a volunteer-driven project?
Dont fall into whatever game Adam is playing by reviving this group.
I'm not playing any game...in fact, the thing that prompted me to
finally write this email was Dan asking on #fedora-qa if there was a FAS
group we could put him in so he'd have fedorapeople space!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:16 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 22:10, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not playing any game...in fact, the thing that prompted me
to
finally write this email was Dan asking on #fedora-qa if there was a FAS
group we could put him in so he'd have fedorapeople space!
The limit that group entirely with providing him and others with that.
JBG
4:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:16 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:10, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm not playing any game...in fact, the thing that prompted me to
> finally write this email was Dan asking on #fedora-qa if there was a FAS
> group we could put him in so he'd have fedorapeople space!
The limit that group entirely with providing him and others with that.
Sorry? I can't parse that.
If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him and
others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we can to
the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them too. And
make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it, whichever way
around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges. And
then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for anything
in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:26 p.m.
On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote:
If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him
and
others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we can to
the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them too. And
make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it, whichever way
around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges. And
then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for anything
in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I thought you meant to ( or worried that it gradually will ) revoke it
to it's previous status but why dont you just add everybody to the
fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried?
JBG
4:41 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:26:08 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him and
> others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
> proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
> relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we
> can to the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them
> too. And make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it,
> whichever way around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges.
> And then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for
> anything in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I thought you meant to ( or worried that it gradually will ) revoke
it to it's previous status but why dont you just add everybody to the
fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried?
JBG
I think for the sake of sanity, having the group with a name that's
clearly tied to it's purpose would be easier from an administration
standpoint. Also wouldn't just appropriating the fedorabugs group
have a negative impact on that group?
Just a thought.
// Roshi
5:04 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:26 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him and
> others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
> proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
> relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we can to
> the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them too. And
> make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it, whichever way
> around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges. And
> then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for anything
> in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I thought you meant to ( or worried that it gradually will ) revoke it
to it's previous status
I don't even know what its previous status was, but no, I certainly
wasn't planning on suggesting we 'gate' anything on qa group membership.
but why dont you just add everybody to the
fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried?
People aren't really meant to be directly added to the fedorabugs group,
the design is that you get added to another group that inherits
fedorabugs: the design is for fedorabugs to be simply a tool we use to
grant editbugs status to members of various other groups. And this way
just seems more clear - you're a QA person, you're in the QA group. It
means we don't have to keep explaining and remembering all the
background.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:12 p.m.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:23:32 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go ahead
and stick
everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the
FAS 'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure
sufficient people within and outside RH have moderator status in the
qa group, and then those of us who are mods can just add people
appropriately. Anyone who files karma regularly, or validation test
results, or posts to test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything
like that - let's just stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future
we can just say 'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA
person membership in the QA group at any time, and when someone sends
a self-introduction mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA
group mods should stick that person in the group'.
I think this makes sense for getting people FedoraPeople space. As long
as there is a decent spread of admins so people can get added when they
need, and we prune the list as it needs pruned - then I think this
makes sense.
// Roshi
11:06 p.m.
On Dec 16, 2013 1:23 PM, "Adam Williamson" <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, folks. So this one keeps popping up for individual people, and we
keep doing a quick band-aid when anyone needs group membership...but we
may as well just bite the bullet and do it properly.
Fedora QA has always been pretty informally organized, we've generally
not wanted to build a big heavy organizational structure with
hierarchies and bits of paper to sign and stuff. One facet of this is
that we don't really have an 'official' Fedora QA FAS group. There is a
'qa' group in FAS, but it has very few members, and we haven't ever
worked on the assumption that the people in it are the 'real' QA people
or anything.
For our purposes we don't really have any incredible need for a QA group
in FAS, but there are some things in Fedora which require you to be a
member of a FAS group besides cla_signed - voting in some elections, for
instance, and getting a fedorapeople.org space. It seems unfortunate
that QA contributors don't get these things unless they get themselves
added to another group.
So I'm proposing we do something simple: let's just go ahead and stick
everyone who can reasonably be considered a 'QA team member' in the FAS
'qa' group. This wouldn't be hard to do, I can make sure sufficient
people within and outside RH have moderator status in the qa group, and
then those of us who are mods can just add people appropriately. Anyone
who files karma regularly, or validation test results, or posts to
test@, or attends QA team meetings, anything like that - let's just
stick 'em in QA group, and then for the future we can just say
'moderators can give anyone who's obviously a QA person membership in
the QA group at any time, and when someone sends a self-introduction
mail and doesn't completely disappear, the QA group mods should stick
that person in the group'.
How does that sound? Seems like something we can just get done already.
Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the admins
of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some more appropriate people
admins and moderators instead. I'll do that right now, since it's
clearly the right thing to do...
--
Adam Williamson
Hi, random outside-ish perspective here:
I semi-regularly do something like "/msg zodbot fasinfo johannbg", to
locate an email address, check time zone, pair with a name and face,
whatever. I appreciate that FAS groups give me an idea of someone's area
of contribution, even if I don't know the degree or the privileges allowed
to members of a given group. These things help the communicate
effectively, and I was surprised when I learned from this mail that the
'QA' group was disused.
--Pete
3755
days inactive
3776
days old
48 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
Adam Williamson -
Akshay Vyas -
Ankur Sinha -
Bob Lightfoot -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Murphy -
Dan Mossor -
John Dulaney -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Kamil Paral -
Mike Ruckman -
Mukundan Ragavan -
Pete Travis -
Peter Robinson -
R P Herrold