Proposal: retire proventesters and bugzappers onboarding processes harder, create new QA onboarding process

"J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" johannbg at
Fri Jan 25 08:34:27 UTC 2013

On 01/25/2013 06:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks! Here's another thing that's been on my todo list for a while.
> So we still get proventester and bugzapper membership requests
> regularly, and poor old dr johnson and to a small degree myself
> laboriously go around telling people 'hi, thanks for joining, but that
> cake was a lie! please come eat this other delicious cake instead'. It's
> kinda silly.

It's been silly for far to long

> So it'd be nice to kill those processes a bit harder: I don't have all
> the specific changes drafted up yet, but my idea would be to actually
> hide the text on the proventesters and BZ pages that describes the
> 'joining' processes. When we first hibernated the PT process we kinda
> thought it might come back again soon, but that doesn't seem to be
> happening, so let's do it a bit harder now.

Remove it altogether both of these are failed processes that should just 
be flagged under tried and tested.

> They would leave a bit of a gap behind, though - it is quite nice to
> hear from people when they join up, and while we previously decided not
> to use the QA FAS group because we didn't really have any tasks that
> needed special privileges, someone pointed out at FUDCon that there are
> some things within Fedora which require membership of a FAS group, like
> voting in certain elections.

Really who proposed that?

> So I think it might be nice if we created a
> generic QA 'onboarding' process - much like those two, where you just
> send a mail to the list saying 'hi, I'd like to join' and we say
> 'welcome!' and add you to the QA FAS group and send you a little
> introductory mail. We could probably give editbugs privs to people in QA
> and add all current members of bugzappers/proventesters into the qa
> group.

I dont know if you had been hired at the time when we decided to put 
down that group in the first place but we dis so for a reason so where 
can I find that discussion so I can see if something new has been 
brought to the table in that regard, which justifies it to be 
resurrected again?

> I can draft up the specific changes later, but does this broad outline
> sound reasonable to everyone? Any concerns or alternative proposals?
> Thanks!

I'm working on a QA community process that essentially merges reporters 
and triaging process together. Separating those two does not make much 
sense and never did.


More information about the test mailing list