re-doing the QA part of "join-fedora"

[Leam Hall]

Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> Daumas, I think I hit your concerns about expectations and have the 
>> basic idea for documenting bodhi, koji, eieio...
>>
> 
> Do we really need a Stream Liaison in the QA team? Should that role be 
> in another Fedora group?
> 
> What about people that wish to download packages from updates-testing 
> and make sure they don't destroy the system (ex: dbus updates)? I would 
> like to fill such a role.
> 
> The other roles look fine to me, but I'm just a newb.
> 

Stream Liason is a reality check. My real goal would be an openness in 
QA that lets us assimilate feedback from the user community and NOT 
require QA to test every bloody thing under the sun before the GA date 
is hit.

For example, if we have some finite community who really really really 
likes TWM on PPC as their window manager then they can really really 
really help by making sure THEY test it. Someone from that community 
could interact with QA if TWM on PPC broke and that person/group could 
act as Stream Liason. They would get the quickest updates, and would 
work into the system and be able to articulate their community needs and 
Fedora's progress bi-directionally.

QA members could volunteer to be a Stream Liason for whatever sub-groups 
they really liked spending time with. The SL is mostly a communications 
point between QA and the specific user community. For starters, it would 
probably be better to have a finite scope on what a "Stream" is. Unless 
you already have a gung-ho team like "KDE" that does much of the same idea.

Does that make more sense? If not, feel to say so.  ;)

On the general tester role, as Rahul also mentioned, you are both right. 
I just blanked out on that one. Just added "Release Tester", does that 
convey the right information?

Leam