On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:51 -0500, 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. In theory, you're right. In practice...meeeeh. editbugs privs are more or less given out like candy; there's 2300+ people in the 'fedorabugs' group already as things stand. As nirik observed, it's never really been a problem. Messing up bug reports is not enough fun for trolls, apparently. If we want to try and tighten it up a bit we could, but I definitely don't think we need to be setting high bars, or anything. I'd figure anyone who's a semi-regular poster here or Bodhi feedback poster or validation tester or whatever is fine to be approved; anyone for whom someone would say 'oh, yeah, I know that person, they test stuff.' > 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. See that's more or less what I just said, only somehow it sounds much more 'forbidding', like you have to pass an exam to get in or something. I do share viking's concern that this doesn't wind up being some 'elite' group of testers or something... > (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.) Well, I mean, in an ideal world we'd have some kind of triaging project that worked. But we've tried that how many times now? :) Since there's no active triage project, really I think 'everyone in QA gets triage powers' is the second-best option. (BTW, in case you're wondering about non-Fedora stuff: AIUI Red Hat products in BZ are protected from Fedora contributors wielding editbugs powers somehow or other. I don't think we're going to have Red Hat C*Os coming down on us for causing their zillion-dollar bug to be sabotaged or anything). > 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. We can do something like that for sure, but yeah, my take is that I wouldn't want it to be too much of a two-tier system. I've stuck a meeting agenda item for the group membership stuff in for Monday, we can chat about it there...maybe you could draft some specific changes to the current group description texts? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
