On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > Sounds good to me and seems like others share the opinion, I will update the wiki today to reflect the change as well as add the step for applying to FAS in the table as fenris02 pointed out to me that it appears to be missing. Thanks all, -AdamM -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
