Proposed directions for proven testers

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 23:05 -0500, Aaron Faanes wrote:

> I worked on this draft a bit on my own user-page. Specifically, I
> wikified some of the links and heavily edited the overview paragraph.
> I'm not an expert by any means on the proven-testers proposal, so I
> might have introduced inaccuracies. Here's the link:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Draft_proventesters_instructions#Testing_process

I definitely think your version is an improvement on mine, thanks very
much. I'd say let's consider this the current working draft for now.

> I wonder if the article would read better by shaping the article
> around responsibilities directly. Each responsibility might be a
> separate section. Here's an example:
> 
> Overview
> Responsibilities
> - Find & install updates to test (Explain updates-testing, Bodhi,
> --enablerepo, etc.)
> - Ensure minimum required functionality (Explain release criteria,
> critpath actions)
> - Investigate problematic updates (Explain techniques?)
> - Report karma to Bodhi, and Bugzilla if necessary (Explain karma rules)

This seems to be how you've done it in your current draft, and I like
that.

> On the other hand, if it seems like these responsibilities share a lot
> of information, then the separate sections could instead become bullet
> points under a 'Responsibilities' section. The shared infomration
> would then become separate sections:
> 
> Overview
> Responsibilities
> Getting Updates (ways to enable updates-testing)
> Criteria
> - release criteria
> - critpath actions
> Tools
> - fedora-easy-karma
> - bodhi
> 
> This might be too article-centric. If the goal of the page is to
> strictly define proven-testers, then a step-by-step outline makes more
> sense. However, linear instructions imply strict adherence, and there
> seems to be a lot of flexibility in how proven-testers can/should
> work.
> 
> I'd be happy to continue working on this by implementing one of the
> outlines above on my draft, or by doing something entirely different,
> too! I just figured I'd throw some ideas out before I got ahead of
> myself. :)

I'm pretty pleased with your current draft, but if you like the second
one better, that's cool too. Or you could draft both and we could pick
which we like. =)

I think the 'Investigate & provide feedback' section could be
streamlined a little - with your nicer framework, some of the content is
duplicated or unnecessary and can be trimmed. Do you mind if I make some
edits to achieve this? Thanks again!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net