Proposed directions for proven testers

Aaron Faanes dafrito at
Tue Jun 22 00:00:25 UTC 2010

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Aaron Faanes <dafrito at> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at> wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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'm kind-of liking the first one better, too. I think it emphasizes
> the responsibilities more clearly. We might run into an issue if we
> skim it down too much, but we'll see. :)
>> 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.
> I agree, that section could use some love. It seems to have a lot of
> information, though. I sketched out a possible outline:
> Typical Scenarios
> - Major bug - Report, vote down
> - Minor bug - Report, vote up/neutral
> - Previously reported bug - Confirm, vote accordingly
> Unusual Scenarios
> - Unreproducible bug
> - Unfamiliar package
> It's possible we'd drop this outline into a separate section from
> Responsibilities, and just leave the "Investigate" section to briefly
> describe what needs to be done.
>>Do you mind if I make some edits to achieve this? Thanks again!
> Not at all! Go right ahead. You can copy it to yours if you want, or
> to another page; I don't have a preference.
> I really appreciate your feedback! I'll try to work on it more
> tonight, and if not, then definitely tomorrow.
> -- Aaron Faanes
>> --
>> Adam Williamson
>> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
>> --
>> test mailing list
>> test at
>> To unsubscribe:

I believe the proven-testers draft is ready for review. It's grown a
bit more ambitious, but I tried to stay true to the spirit of the
original draft - I did my best to only revise and clarify the content
without affecting its meaning. Still, it requires a look-over by some
knowledgeable folks to weed out inaccuracies, invalid assumptions,
etc. Here's the link:

The discussion page asks about some other issues that I ran into, specifically:
* The relationship between critpath actions and release criteria
* A more exhaustive list of critpath actions
* The future of and
if any content should be exchanged or merged between the two articles.
* Whether the article should be pushed to wiki/Proven_tester with a
{{Draft}} template. I'd like to do this to encourage contribution, but
that may be premature.

I definitely welcome any edits, corrections, and/or feedback on these
questions and the submitted draft!

-- Aaron Faanes

More information about the test mailing list