2010-04-26 @ ** 15:00 UTC ** - Fedora QA meeting recap

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 16:52 -0400, James Laska wrote:

> Will leave this as a discussion topic next week.  The open questions for
> me are ...
> 
>      1. What are our expectations for proventesters?  Kamil's package
>         update test plan [1] seems like a great start.  What other
>         guidance can we give proventesters?  I'd like to avoid saying,
>         "please just test stuff"
>      2. How to determine whether someone who is requesting proventesters
>         membership has the right stuff?  Can we document the criteria
>         that will be used?  Bugzilla stats (new bugs, traiged bugs),
>         bodhi karma supplied, mailing list contributions ...

I tend to approach this kind of thing quite liberally; I don't think
it's worth sweating too hard about rejecting people, usually I consider
the group as a tool for smoothing out the process if problems appear.
I'd broadly expect to approve most people who apply, and the group
membership acts as a check on their work; if we find someone is being
malicious (or, unlikely, just really bad and not able to improve their
work), we can always take them out of the group again.

In general I reckon anyone who has the motivation to read the
instructions through and apply to the group probably is going to be
amenable to working co-operatively with the rest of the group and
working in line with whatever procedures we agree, which is all we
really require.

But that's just my approach, there are others :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net