FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:10, 17 November 2011

QualityAssurance

In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team^[1]. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page^[2].

We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.

Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson

Test Days

In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September^[1] ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15^[2], another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22^[3], an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26^[4], a power management test day on 2011-09-29^[5], printing test day on 2011-10-06^[6], Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13^[7], and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20^[8]. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.

The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide^[9], or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki^[10].

Fedora 16 preparation

As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.

Release criteria updates

Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, Adam Williamson reported that he had committed his proposed modifications^[1]. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards^[2].

Adam also passed on a suggestion from Peter Jones to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria^[3]. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham^[4] was eventually accepted and committed^[5].

Tim Flink raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria^[6]. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion^[7].

Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage^[8].

Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues^[9]. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week^[10].

Update policy changes

In September, Karsten Hopp raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time^[1]. Adam Williamson explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group^[2]. Chuck Anderson noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly^[3]. Rahul Sundaram suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue^[4], and Karsten did^[5].

That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford^[6], which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed^[7], and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester^[8], effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.

The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07^[9], agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.

Update candidate notification

Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system^[1]. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, Adam Williamson suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository^[2], and Till Maas pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications^[3].

Proven tester meetings

As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, Kevin Fenzi ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups^[1] from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6].

Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing^[7]. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.

QA group representation at FUDCon Pune

Ankur Sinha asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities^[1]. Adam Williamson replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself^[2]. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session^[3]. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04^[4], but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!

[1] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

[2] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join

[3] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau

[4] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization

[5] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop

[6] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT

[7] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement

[8] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing

[9] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse

[10] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day

[11] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management

[12] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create

[13] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html

[14] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html

[15] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html

[16] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html

[17] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html

[18] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html

[19] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html

[20] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html

[21] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html

[22] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html

[23] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html

[24] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html

[25] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html

[26] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html

[27] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664

[28] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667

[29] ttp://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642

[30] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26

[31] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107

[32] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html

[33] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html

[34] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html

[35] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html

[36] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html

[37] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html

[38] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html

[39] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html

[40] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html

[41] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html

[42] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html

[43] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html

[44] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html

[45] ttp://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == QualityAssurance ==
-In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>.
+In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join</ref>.
+We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.
 Contributing Writer: [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]]
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 === Test Days ===
-This week's Test Day<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-05-14_iBus</ref> was on iBus<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IBus</ref>, the new default input method framework for Asian languages in Fedora 11. Over 15 people came out to test and report their results, and overall the new system seemed to be working solidly, but testing revealed several issues for the developers to work on. Thanks to all who came out for the Test Day.
+In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization</ref>, another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop</ref>, an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT</ref>, a power management test day on 2011-09-29<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement</ref>, printing test day on 2011-10-06<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing</ref>, Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse</ref>, and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day</ref>. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.
-Currently, no Test Day is scheduled for next week - it is too close to the scheduled release of Fedora 11 for any testing to produce results directly in Fedora 11 final release, but if you would like to propose a test day which could result in changes for post-release updates, or an early test day for Fedora 12, please contact the QA team via email or IRC.
+The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management</ref>, or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create</ref>.
 <references/>
-=== Weekly meetings ===
+=== Fedora 16 preparation ===
-The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-13. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090513</ref>. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] reported that he had been doing a lot of upgrade tests, but had not had time to write them up formally as test cases as was planned at the previous meeting.
+As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had completed the revision of the Fedora bug workflow page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow</ref> to include the alternative processes agreed for closing bugs in Rawhide at the previous meeting, and had made further changes. He directed the group to his announcement email<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01034.html</ref> for further details.
+<references/>
-[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] reported there had been little work on the autoqa project during the week, as testing for Fedora 11 release had taken priority.
+=== Release criteria updates ===
-The group discussed how to get feedback on the conduct of Test Days themselves, rather than on the software being tested. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested adding a 'suggestion box' to the normal layout for Test Day wiki pages. [[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] suggested an email to the fedora-test-list mailing list. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] wanted to get in touch with the maintainers who had been involved with Fedora 11 Test Days for their suggestions; [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] thought it better to simply contact them via email then attempt to set up some kind of survey system.
+Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had committed his proposed modifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html</ref>. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html</ref>.
-The group then discussed the Fedora 11 release situation. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] explained that [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] had already led a complete review of all outstanding blocker bugs for the release, trimming the list from over 70 to under 40 by downgrading the priority of some issues, and closing some which had already been addressed, after testing. Jesse thought the planned schedule for a second round of reviews was too late, and decided that it should happen on 2009-05-18. The group agreed that the handling of the final stages of release had not been optimal for F11, and for F12 the group should endeavour to get the blocker bug review done earlier in order to be ready for the release candidate phase, and that it would be useful to hold more blocker review meetings earlier in the cycle overall.
+Adam also passed on a suggestion from [[User:Pjones|Peter Jones]] to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html</ref>. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html</ref> was eventually accepted and committed<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html</ref>.
-The group then discussed the release candidate phase (note that release candidate builds are generally not widely distributed beyond the QA group, for reasons of timing and available resources). [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] explained that he planned to create an installation test matrix, with 'how to test' documentation. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] and [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] were already working on smoke testing early pre-RC builds. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested sending an email to fedora-test-list to remind members that now is an ideal time to be testing installation from Rawhide.
+[[User:Tflink|Tim Flink]] raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html</ref>. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html</ref>.
-[[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] raised the issue of the lack of clarity regarding Fedora's target user base, which [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] had mentioned in discussions on fedora-devel-list. [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] mentioned that the issue was already under active discussion by the board. After a long discussion, the group all agreed that the QA group did not need to have an opinion on what type of user Fedora should be targetting, but should make it clear to the board that the lack of a clear definition of this issue was actively affecting the ability of the QA group to work effectively, and QA work would benefit immediately from a clear resolution of this issue, whatever the resolution may be.
+Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html</ref>.
-[[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] asked about progress on [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating's]] proposal to drop the Alpha milestone for the Fedora 12 release cycle. Jesse reported the proposal had been approved by the Release Engineering group and then by FESCo.
+Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html</ref>. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html</ref>.
-The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-12. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-12</ref>. [[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] reported that the planned email to fedora-devel-announce about the housekeeping changes in Bugzilla for Fedora 11 release was ready, and asked for feedback. The group agreed the email looked fine except for talking about Fedora 12 instead of Fedora 11. John promised to fix this and then send out the email.
+<references/>
-The group briefly discussed the query used to find bugs filed on Rawhide to be changed to Fedora 11, and mostly agreed that it looked fine.
+=== Update policy changes ===
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported on the progress of the triage metric system. Brennan Ashton had been very busy during the week and hence difficult to get hold of. He reported that the Python development group was waiting for Brennan to provide test data for them to confirm their proposed fixes to the code were correct, and he was trying to get Brennan to provide this data.
+In September, [[User:Karsten|Karsten Hopp]] raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html</ref>. [[User:Cra|Chuck Anderson]] noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html</ref>. [[User:Sundaram|Rahul Sundaram]] suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html</ref>, and Karsten did<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] also reported on the progress of the proposal to include setting the priority / severity fields as part of triage. The request for feedback on fedora-devel-list had produced little response; Adam suggested this wasn't a problem, as the main point was to make sure no developers were actively opposed to the proposal for good reasons. The group agreed that Adam would send a mail to the list to move the process along with a view to starting work on priority / severity as part of the initial triage process soon.
+That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667</ref>, which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642</ref>, and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26</ref>, effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.
-[[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] revived the proposal to create a 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against component to catch bug reports when the reporter was not sure what the component should be. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] pointed out the potential drawback to the proposal was that it would encourage reporters not to bother selecting the correct component for their report, thus needlessly increasing the load on the triagers. The group agreed that the current small number of bugs filed against the 0xFFFF component which currently occupies the first spot in the components list indicated this was not a problem worth making an active effort to address, and further agreed to work on correctly assigning all bugs currently filed against 0xFFFF.
+The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107</ref>, agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.
-The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-05-20 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting, and the next Bugzappers weekly meeting on 2009-05-19 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
 <references/>
-=== Upcoming Bugzilla changes ===
+=== Update candidate notification ===
-[[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] announced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00560.html</ref> that the regular housekeeping changes to Bugzilla for a new release would be happening on 2009-05-26, with all bugs filed on Rawhide being changed to Fedora 11, and a comment left on bugs filed on Fedora 9 that they must be moved to a later release if confirmed still to be valid, or else they will be closed as WONTFIX.
+Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html</ref>. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html</ref>, and [[User:till|Till Maas]] pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html</ref>.
 <references/>
-=== Bugzappers new member SOP ===
+=== Proven tester meetings ===
+As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, [[User:Kevin|Kevin Fenzi]] ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html</ref> from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00673.html</ref> that he had revised the new members SOP<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/sop_new_member</ref> to be clearer and more explicit, and the page explaining how to join the Bugzappers group<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Joining</ref> to fully explain the revised process, including the self-introduction email.
+Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html</ref>. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.
 <references/>
-=== Priority / severity process ==
+=== QA group representation at FUDCon Pune ===
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] followed up<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00674.html</ref> on the priority / severity proposal, explaining that no significant negative feedback had been received from the development group, and asking for votes on which method for setting these fields the group should proceed with.
+[[User:Ankursinha|Ankur Sinha]] asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html</ref>. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html</ref>. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04<ref>http://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing</ref>, but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!
 <references/>

Search