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

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jan 25 15:36:48 UTC 2013


On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 08:34 +0000, "J├│hann B. Gu├░mundsson" wrote:

> > 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.

I still think PT could potentially be useful when we get Bodhi 2.0, so
I'm kinda reluctant to lose it entirely. So far as BZ goes personally
I'd be happy to drop it if we merged it into QA as you propose, but we
should do that first...

> > 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?

I don't recall. It wasn't really a proposal, just a side note on
something else - one of those things that whizzes by that you happen to
file away.

> > 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?

Heh - Tim and I both had a vague feeling there was some specific reason
we couldn't use the 'qa' group but we just couldn't think of anything
concrete, and I mailed jlaska to ask him and he couldn't remember
either. Sounds like you have the same feeling. I don't have a magic
record of discussions, sadly - when I'm trying to find anything I just
search the list archives in Evo or mailman and the meeting archives with
Google, that's all I got. If you were involved in the last discussion,
you'd probably have better luck searching the archives than me, since
you know what you're looking for. I'd be interested to read this too, if
you can find it.

> 
> > 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.

Sure, I don't think there's anyone left who cares about BZ being its own
thing.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the test mailing list