On 12/20/2013 11:51 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
as discussed, being in the group is not intended to be actually
necessary for any QA tasks, we're just going to have it to allow you to
get voting rights and fedorapeople space and as a
handy-but-probably-incomplete list of people involved with QA. no plans
to change any of our current tasks or processes to depend on group
membership in any way.
oh, and group membership gives you 'editbugs' privs in Bugzilla, so you
can do triage.
I like the change with qa group in general. I have a few concerns as well:
1. Since we give people editbugs privileges (I assume that means that you can freely edit any item in any bug report), we should only accept people we trust and they should be aware of their powers and what to do (not to do) with them. Since there is no description box for the group in FAS, we should probably create a wiki page where we describe the granted powers and responsibilities and link to that. Also there should be a section with guidelines for sponsors, so that they can easily decide whether to accept an application.
2. Currently the "Rules for Application:" feels like "free voting rights! free online space! free hot dogs!". I think it should clearly explain that we don't grant the membership to everyone, we grant it only to people that we see around often, we know that they do good work, and we know that they won't abuse their new powers. (Hm, I wonder whether we really want to grant editbugs privs to every single person who performed a reasonable amount of testing for Fedora. Should these two things be coupled together? If somebody reported a few bugs, I think it's OK to reward him with voting rights and such, but he should not get editbugs privs, yet.)
3. I have some experience with translator teams in the past. We also used a group for giving people extra powers (revert translations and such). I have a bad experience with free-to-apply groups. I spent a lot of time explaining people that "no, you don't need to be in the group just to translate software, this is for additional permissions, and we can add you once you've been around for some time and see that you do good work" over and over again. It helped us so much to have a short clear description (explicitly stating that they can do any translator work without being in this group, this is sooo important) and having it invite-only (a lot of people don't read descriptions when they see a big Join button). If someone is eligible to be added, you usually know him, he knows you, and it's easy for him to ping you and ask for a group membership. I advise here to do the same.
Regarding concern #2 - How about a system wherein folks are admitted to
the QA FAS group pretty much freely, but have to remain an active member
of the QA team for a period of time, say 30 days, to be sponsored into
the fedorabugs FAS group? The QA group itself does not have the editbugs
privilege, whereas the fedorabugs group exists solely to give members of
other groups those editbugs privileges.
I know this sounds too much like the hierarchy we're trying to avoid,
but is anarchy the correct answer? There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
--
Dan Mossor
Systems Engineer at Large
Fedora QA Team Volunteer FAS: dmossor IRC: danofsatx
San Antonio, Texas, USA
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
