On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 23:55 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > In the last QA meeting it was discussed that we needed some set of > policies or guidelines for handling memberships to the QA FAS group > for adding karma to the packages within the critical path of F13 (or > Fedora CURRENT_RELEASE+1). I volunteered to draft up such a document > in the wiki and I snagged a little bit of the wiki mark up from the > Ambassadors join page as a template, so thanks to who ever authored > that one. > > Some notes on my Draft, I thought of putting together policies but I > don't entirely find this a policy style situation but I consider it a > "case by case" basis just as the Proven Packager process is. Its > essentially a "does this person do consistently good QA work?" > situation that (in my opinion) should be under review by peers to > decide their state of readiness to be responsible for karma that goes > into the Critical Path packages. That to me makes it feel like it would fit into the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) mould quite well - just as we currently use for membership of the Bugzappers group. > Ok, intro and disclaimer aside. Here's my proposal: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinCriticalPathWranglers:Draft > > There are some details on the mentors concept that I think would need > working out (denoted by the FIXME bit) that I assume can be worked on > at the next QA meeting. > > Questions, comments, and snide remarks welcome! It looks nice - clean and relatively simple. It does have some slightly hand-wavy bits, like 'Once these steps are complete and your mentor feels you versed enough in the processes and methods of the QA Community'. We might want to make that a bit more concrete, as I'm sure you considered too. But I like it so far. Thanks a lot! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
