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.
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!
I think this is good, and it dawns on me that releng doesn't need to
duplicate this. I'm not sure where the thought first came from to have
crit-path voting come from both releng or QA groups, when in reality it
could just be a single group that has members who span different areas.
It would likely make code easier on the update side too, and make
finding somebody to karma up your update easier too. So I'm going to
suggest we kill the releng side of this and just go forward with net
positive karma from the QA group, and those of us in releng that want to
have our vote count can go through the process of getting into the QA
group.
Sound reasonable?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/jkeating