ProvenTesters Draft (Was: Join Proven Packagers DRAFT)

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Tue Mar 30 22:50:41 UTC 2010

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 10:12 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all testers out there!
> I somehow got it in my mind that we were calling the ProvenTesters
> group ProvenPackagers even though I new good and well that such a FAS
> group already exists and is overseen by FESCo. So here we are with
> round 2 and a correct naming structure. I apologize for any confusion
> I might have caused.
> Original email here:
> New wiki page here:
> Questions, Comments and Snide Remarks are all welcome!

"Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1" <-- the official name is Branched, you can
just say 'Fedora Branched', and link to the Branched page - . You can put a little
explanation of what Branched is in brackets if you feel it necessary, I

I think the way the page starts off with the 'what is Critical Path?'
question is a bit jarring. I'd start with 'What are Quality Assurance
Proven Testers?' and explain critical path either just by linking to the
page, or as a sub-note in that section, not give it its own section.

On the other hand, I'd start a new section for "The following steps are
imperative to join the QA Proven Testers:". 'How to join' is different
from 'What it is', to me. The explanation of the group could be a bit
more extended, and there could be a bit more sell on why you'd want to
join up.

Step 3 is a bit worrying; it's a very vague 'roadblock' (how do I know
when I'm sufficiently 'involved' to move on to step 4?) I'd probably
ditch step 3 and go straight to step 4. If we're requiring mentoring,
the mentor can always act as a filter for someone who's just joined and
doesn't have a clue what they're doing, and suggest they do some more
'appropriate' activities before becoming a proven tester.

I wouldn't have "ProvenTesters FAS Group" as a separate section. It can
just flow on from the above text, if it's part of a 'How to join'

The line "The QA group  within FAS  will grant the ability to add karma
inside of Bodhi to the Critical Path packages within Fedora
CURRENT_RELEASE+1." seems out of place - is it an orphan?
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the test mailing list