On 01/25/2013 03:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 08:34 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" 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...
Why do you think we will have more "proven testers"/participation when
bodhi 2.0 arrives?
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 dont recall if James had moved internally within Red Hat to Fedora QA
at that groups time and was ever part of that group at least it was me
Jesse, Jeremy and Will Woods and maybe John Poelstra and Jon Stanley so
you have better luck contacting one Red Hat employee further back ( Will
Woods ) and ask him.
I'll see if I dont have the mailinglist archives on backup from that
time stored somewhere and look through just to confirm what I already know.
And if you are going to reactivate QA group then I want full admin
privileges on that along with at least one or two other non RH persons
here from the community.
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
