On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 16:52 -0400, James Laska wrote: > Will leave this as a discussion topic next week. The open questions for > me are ... > > 1. What are our expectations for proventesters? Kamil's package > update test plan [1] seems like a great start. What other > guidance can we give proventesters? I'd like to avoid saying, > "please just test stuff" > 2. How to determine whether someone who is requesting proventesters > membership has the right stuff? Can we document the criteria > that will be used? Bugzilla stats (new bugs, traiged bugs), > bodhi karma supplied, mailing list contributions ... I tend to approach this kind of thing quite liberally; I don't think it's worth sweating too hard about rejecting people, usually I consider the group as a tool for smoothing out the process if problems appear. I'd broadly expect to approve most people who apply, and the group membership acts as a check on their work; if we find someone is being malicious (or, unlikely, just really bad and not able to improve their work), we can always take them out of the group again. In general I reckon anyone who has the motivation to read the instructions through and apply to the group probably is going to be amenable to working co-operatively with the rest of the group and working in line with whatever procedures we agree, which is all we really require. But that's just my approach, there are others :) -- 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
