Fesco membership policies

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group
> to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters
> is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is
> to start using the qa group to track the core members of the qa team.

So the QA group will be restored to it's previous functionality along 
with it's members right....

We have kept it very hard to not make any kind of distinction in the QA 
community everybody's treated equal no one is better then the next man 
and everybody have to follow the same procedures while having as little 
entry level as possible and now you are proposing that we shatter that 
by reintroducing "team elite" and label people part of core or not part 
of core.

That alone is something that needs to be discussed with the QA community 
itself.

By the way there arent any official ruling body of QA and those that are 
doing most the work a.k.a "so called core members of the QA team" are 
the once subscribed to the Red Hat check and are doing so as a part of 
their $dayjob and perhaps on their free time as well I dont know.

The real issue here is that it seems to be popular amongst candidates to 
slap some kind of QA statement into their candidacy even if those 
individual have never been part of the QA community et all atleast not 
to any large extent and that has somehow be tied with the QA Community 
general.

People that are involved usually don't need any introduction or be tied 
to any subgroup within the project their track record speaks for 
themselves so in all fairness either keep status quo or drop all 
requirements and let user keep what ever they voted over themselves as a 
result of that.

JBG