On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 19:35 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group > > to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters > > is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is > > to start using the qa group to track the core members of the qa team. > > So the QA group will be restored to it's previous functionality along > with it's members right.... > > We have kept it very hard to not make any kind of distinction in the QA > community everybody's treated equal no one is better then the next man > and everybody have to follow the same procedures while having as little > entry level as possible and now you are proposing that we shatter that > by reintroducing "team elite" and label people part of core or not part > of core. > > That alone is something that needs to be discussed with the QA community > itself. > > By the way there arent any official ruling body of QA and those that are > doing most the work a.k.a "so called core members of the QA team" are > the once subscribed to the Red Hat check and are doing so as a part of > their $dayjob and perhaps on their free time as well I dont know. > > The real issue here is that it seems to be popular amongst candidates to > slap some kind of QA statement into their candidacy even if those > individual have never been part of the QA community et all atleast not > to any large extent and that has somehow be tied with the QA Community > general. > > People that are involved usually don't need any introduction or be tied > to any subgroup within the project their track record speaks for > themselves so in all fairness either keep status quo or drop all > requirements and let user keep what ever they voted over themselves as a > result of that. I don't think Bruno was really *proposing* it, just floating it as a possibility. Obviously, if FESCo were to say it would allow 'QA members' to serve on FESCo, we'd need *some* way of identifying who is 'in' QA, or else the policy would be an effective dead letter. Having said that, though, I mostly agree with Johann's concerns - I like the lack of a formal membership system for QA, partly for the reasons Johann cites and also just because it avoids unnecessary paperwork, which I'm always in favour of. Making sure every QA is process is entirely open to participation with the max requirement being a Bugzilla account and a FAS account has worked quite well for us so far and obviated the need for complicated entrance procedures, special handshakes and the like. If we _have_ to change that for a good reason, we can, but we do like to keep things as lightweight as possible. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
