ProvenTesters Draft (Was: Join Proven Packagers DRAFT)

Adam Miller maxamillion at
Thu Apr 1 15:48:01 UTC 2010

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at> wrote:
> "Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1" <-- the official name is Branched, you can
> just say 'Fedora Branched', and link to the Branched page -
> . 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
> --
> test mailing list
> test at
> To unsubscribe:

Current draft available at

All feedback welcome, thanks for the review!


()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\   - against proprietary attachments

More information about the test mailing list