jlaska at redhat.com
Wed Jul 7 13:25:54 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:10 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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 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
> Sounds good to me and seems like others share the opinion, I will
> update the wiki today to reflect the change as well as add the step
> for applying to FAS in the table as fenris02 pointed out to me that it
> appears to be missing.
Thanks for initiating this topic Adam. I don't have strong opinions
here, but I could see your option#2 being used in the event (hopefully
unlikely) that we need to provide a more consistent screening process
for proventesters. What you guys have both established seems like a
good first-time process, light-weight ... not too many
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100707/d9cf1b2b/attachment.bin
More information about the test