Adam, thanks for getting the ball rolling on this topic.
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:24 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
Hello all,
In an attempt to move forward with the "Critical Path Wranglers"
as mentioned in a previous mail to the list[0] I wanted to reach out
and request people post their processes, skills, and focus area in
respect to QA efforts. This will help to outline some potential
requirements or possibly focus groups for potential membership of
incoming QA Community members who want to join the party of keeping
critical path packages in check.
Many thanks in advance!
-AdamM
[0]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088824.html
I spoke with wwoods about this briefly, and I thought he had a good
idea. Using a bug reports as criteria for evaluating membership to the
providetester group. This seemed like a good foot in the door for
evaluating whether someone can take a problem and present the data in an
actionable manner for a package maintainer.
Perhaps at some point in the future, we could query bodhi for all karma
feedback a FAS user has provided. We might not have a rich data set
early on here considering karma feedback hasn't been stressed as much as
it is now. But just an idea.
How about gathering a list of wiki edits associated with the FAS user
[1]. In and of themselves, wiki edits don't provide a qualitative
measurement, but it seems to satisfy the quantitative aspect. It could
answer whether the FAS user has contributed to the Test_Results or QA
name spaces (test days or test events).
Just some thoughts. Hopefully, this is in line with the feedback you
are interested in.
Thanks,
James
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:Contributions