2011-01-24 @ 16:00UTC - Fedora QA meeting - call for topics

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Sat Jan 22 00:17:11 UTC 2011

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:10:14 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/21/2011 07:09 PM, James Laska wrote:
> >      1. Adjusting proventesters group to be invite-only
> I dont know who's bright idea this

Mine I guess... ;) 

>  is but I think the QA community
> should automatically scrape off any kind of "invite-only" ideas of the
> tables since they eventually always lead to "social classes" being
> formed an "Elite" who gets to pick who's on the team and so fourth and
> so on which has negative impact on the QA community in whole and lead
> to degrease in participation rather than increase.

The group is already essentially 'invite only', because people are
required to read the docs and tell a sponsor they have done so. 
Perhaps we could replace that with a checkbox or something? 
(Althought the current account system doesn't allow that that I know of)

> Anyway failing to see the reasoning behind this beside perhaps the
> point that it is to keep packagers/maintainers out as in prevent them
> from altering the results on their own/each others updates which we
> should be able to achieve with different means other than this if
> that's what's being aimed for.
> What's the problem trying to be fixed here?

People have found the group in the account system, applied there and
are waiting. They will wait forever until they file a ticket for a
sponsor to see them and ask if they have read the docs. If we set the
group invite only, they will see the link to the process there and
follow it without getting dropped between the cracks. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110121/f1a74dd5/attachment.bin 

More information about the test mailing list