On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 22:05 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote: > Hey all! After some talking with danofsatx and looking through the > wiki, we thought the Join page could use a little de-wallification. > > Dan and I have created an alternate page I propose we use instead. You > can see it on my user page [1]. The thought is for this page to be a > living document that changes as QA does. It was already supposed to be that =) Actually, one of the first things I did when I joined QA was notice the Join page was bitrotting and revise it...history repeats itself :) > Please take a minute > to check it out and give us some feedback. Viking provided some feedback > earlier and had some reservations which I've noted below. > > 1 - Mentioning Triage (Bugzappers) > 2 - Mentioning Stable releases (Proven Testers) > 3 - Specifying people (Such as Tim Flink as contact for developing > tools) > > 1 & 2 Viking suggested we leave those two areas off the Join page > until it has been decided what to do with them. Testing and Triage go > hand in hand - so logically someone doing one would do both. Viking is > in the midst of figuring out a way to gracefully merge the two. I agree > testing and triage should be together - I just don't know about removing > any mention of them from the Join page. I think it'd be fine to drop any mention of the word 'Bugzappers' at least. That effort seems pretty comprehensively dead. We could mention triage vaguely and generically until viking's proposal is worked out? The current section of the page is, as you can probably tell, a 'quick fix' to the text it contained when Bugzappers was live. It's a quick fix I threw at it some time recently when I noticed it was still talking about BZ as if it was a Thing, but I didn't have time to fix it better. I moved it to the bottom of the page at that point on purpose, though, due to this situation - that's why it was there (I notice you relocated it). > While I think I understand the logic of removing mention of Bugzappers > and Proven Testers, I don't think we should remove mention of the > information contained within those areas of the wiki. Regardless the > status of those groups, we still need to test stable releases and > triage bugs - and we need new contributors to join in. It seems to me, > we should duplicate the information somewhere neutral. [2] Yeah, that was more or less how I felt when I looked at those pages last time - a lot of the information on them would still be of use, and we need to keep it somehow. Especially the karma guide that came out of the proventesters effort is useful. > This allows the information to still be readily available to new > contributors, but lessens the chance of confusion regarding Bugzappers > and Proven Testers while their fate is decided. > > As for reservation 3, the only fix I can think of is to add a new > "tools" group or "tools" position to refer to - which we would have to > put someone in charge of. From what I understand, QA has stayed away > from bureaucracy in the past > - so we wouldn't want a position to put people in. While mentioning > people by name has a higher maintenance cost, it does seem a simple > solution and keeps the organization of QA flat. Yeah, that's basically it. That particular line has been there since before I joined (in 2009) - except back then it said Will Woods. We've had to change it precisely once in those five years, so it doesn't seem like too much of a maintenance burden :) It's not perfect-world-ideal, but I don't think it's a huge problem. We could just point to the qa-devel mailing list instead, though, I suppose? We didn't have that separate list when that line was first written. > Regardless, if we remove mention of defunct groups and specific people, > we need to have a plan (which I'm more than willing to implement, once > it's decided) to get that information back to the page. It shouldn't be > removed and then forgotten. > > Any thoughts or solutions would be great. Thanks and have a good > weekend! Looks good to me, thanks for the work. I like the 'quick summary with lots of links at the top' - when I initially rewrote the page I tried to make it so each section was short and snappy and the entire page fit into a 1024x768 maximized window, so that kind of 'top summary' wouldn't be necessary, but I never quite achieved that at first and it's only got bigger since then. So I think this is a good way to go. -- 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
