|
I'd say only those interested in being mentors. Dulaney > Subject: Re: ProvenTesters Sponsorship > From: awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx > To: test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:16:56 -0700 > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 16:47 -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > > Hello testers! > > > > I wanted to open a conversation on the list about how we want to as a > > group handle sponsorship. I wanted to propose two ideas I had and > > leave the floor open for other suggestions. > > > > 1) Allow the sponsors/mentors to individually decide upon new > > proventesters FAS group menbers when they feel the person they are > > mentoring is "ready" > > 2) Have a vote process such that when a proventester-to-be (i.e.- > > currently being mentored) is considered familiar enough with the > > processes by their mentor and has shown a track record of good testing > > practices that they are to present their formal request to the current > > proventesters at a QA meeting and then a vote is given? > > > > The way it is currently outlined in the wiki[0] leans more the > > direction of option 2 but I wanted to bring it up as I think each > > option has some benefits. I like option 1 because the mentor is going > > to be the one who ultimately has (or should have) the closest working > > relationship with the person they are mentoring and therefore would be > > the best judge upon when they are "ready." I however also like option > > 2 because it feels like a more formal process and allows for some more > > uniformity on how decisions are made, allows for the group as a > > community to constructively critique their peers as well as offers a > > little more oversight in the process. > > > > I also wanted to point out concerns I have with each. Option 1 I feel > > could spawn some feeling of chaos where people are getting added > > "willy nilly" (cheesy saying, I know ... ) and I worry that Option 2 > > could run us into the situation where we could be preventing testers > > from joining in with their critpath contributions (example: request > > comes in on a Tuesday, we have to cancel the meeting the following > > Monday for some reason .... 2 weeks go by for sponsorship in FAS). > > > > Just my thoughts, please reply with questions, comments, and if need > > be ... snide remarks ;) > > Most definitely Option 1, Option 2 is way too much bureaucracy. This > ain't the Order of the Bath. > > I am perfectly happy for people to be added willy-nilly, it's really not > a problem in my opinion. The reason the group exists is simply to give > us a control mechanism so that we can take people *out* of it if > necessary. I don't view it as a terrible disaster if we let someone into > the group who turns out to either a) suck or b) be be evil, because the > whole point is that we can then quite easily take them out again. The > application process and the FAS group are really just there to ensure > that we have that escape valve, and to provide a little hoop for people > to jump through so we know they care at least a little bit. That's all. > > For me, the only question to settle is if we make every proventester > member able to sponsor new members, or just ones who express an interest > in being mentors. > -- > 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 Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more. |
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
