ProvenTesters Sponsorship

[John Dulaney]

I'd say only those interested in being mentors.
Dulaney

> Subject: Re: ProvenTesters Sponsorship
> From: awilliam at redhat.com
> To: test at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:16:56 -0700
> 
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 16:47 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> > Hello testers!
> > 
> > I wanted to open a conversation on the list about how we want to as a
> > group handle sponsorship. I wanted to propose two ideas I had and
> > leave the floor open for other suggestions.
> > 
> > 1) Allow the sponsors/mentors to individually decide upon new
> > proventesters FAS group menbers when they feel the person they are
> > mentoring is "ready"
> > 2) Have a vote process such that when a proventester-to-be (i.e.-
> > currently being mentored) is considered familiar enough with the
> > processes by their mentor and has shown a track record of good testing
> > practices that they are to present their formal request to the current
> > proventesters at a QA meeting and then a vote is given?
> > 
> > The way it is currently outlined in the wiki[0] leans more the
> > direction of option 2 but I wanted to bring it up as I think each
> > option has some benefits. I like option 1 because the mentor is going
> > to be the one who ultimately has (or should have) the closest working
> > relationship with the person they are mentoring and therefore would be
> > the best judge upon when they are "ready." I however also like option
> > 2 because it feels like a more formal process and allows for some more
> > uniformity on how decisions are made, allows for the group as a
> > community to constructively critique their peers as well as offers a
> > little more oversight in the process.
> > 
> > I also wanted to point out concerns I have with each. Option 1 I feel
> > could spawn some feeling of chaos where people are getting added
> > "willy nilly" (cheesy saying, I know ... ) and I worry that Option 2
> > could run us into the situation where we could be preventing testers
> > from joining in with their critpath contributions (example: request
> > comes in on a Tuesday, we have to cancel the meeting the following
> > Monday for some reason .... 2 weeks go by for sponsorship in FAS).
> > 
> > Just my thoughts, please reply with questions, comments, and if need
> > be ... snide remarks ;)
> 
> Most definitely Option 1, Option 2 is way too much bureaucracy. This
> ain't the Order of the Bath.
> 
> I am perfectly happy for people to be added willy-nilly, it's really not
> a problem in my opinion. The reason the group exists is simply to give
> us a control mechanism so that we can take people *out* of it if
> necessary. I don't view it as a terrible disaster if we let someone into
> the group who turns out to either a) suck or b) be be evil, because the
> whole point is that we can then quite easily take them out again. The
> application process and the FAS group are really just there to ensure
> that we have that escape valve, and to provide a little hoop for people
> to jump through so we know they care at least a little bit. That's all.
> 
> For me, the only question to settle is if we make every proventester
> member able to sponsor new members, or just ones who express an interest
> in being mentors.
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> 
> -- 
> test mailing list
> test at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe: 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100706/da948828/attachment.html