Adam, thanks for getting the ball rolling on this topic. On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:24 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > Hello all, > In an attempt to move forward with the "Critical Path Wranglers" > as mentioned in a previous mail to the list[0] I wanted to reach out > and request people post their processes, skills, and focus area in > respect to QA efforts. This will help to outline some potential > requirements or possibly focus groups for potential membership of > incoming QA Community members who want to join the party of keeping > critical path packages in check. > > Many thanks in advance! > > -AdamM > > [0] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088824.html I spoke with wwoods about this briefly, and I thought he had a good idea. Using a bug reports as criteria for evaluating membership to the providetester group. This seemed like a good foot in the door for evaluating whether someone can take a problem and present the data in an actionable manner for a package maintainer. Perhaps at some point in the future, we could query bodhi for all karma feedback a FAS user has provided. We might not have a rich data set early on here considering karma feedback hasn't been stressed as much as it is now. But just an idea. How about gathering a list of wiki edits associated with the FAS user [1]. In and of themselves, wiki edits don't provide a qualitative measurement, but it seems to satisfy the quantitative aspect. It could answer whether the FAS user has contributed to the Test_Results or QA name spaces (test days or test events). Just some thoughts. Hopefully, this is in line with the feedback you are interested in. Thanks, James [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:Contributions
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
