UBTCriteria

Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2010-04-19 03:06:34
Size: 332
Editor: cpe-76-189-11-217
Comment:
Revision 2 as of 2010-04-19 05:32:20
Size: 1510
Editor: ip72-213-131-215
Comment: updated from etherpad session
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
Criteria for how to define quality output from a person in a given Focus Group.
Line 2: Line 4:
(how to define quality output from a person) [#] of example posts that showed skilled resolution for dealing with questions from new users. Also examples of how the [CANDIDATE] was able to refine the original question down to what the 'real' issue was so a solution could be offered. In addition [#] of FAQ/How-To posts that show a quality product that allow new users to tackle the problem covered with ease.
Line 6: Line 8:
(how to define quality output from a person) [#] of wiki pages that show the [CANDIDATE] has produced clear and concise documentation, cleaned up out-of-date documentation or added information that further clarifies the subject
Line 10: Line 12:
(how to define quality output from a person) [#] of LP Answers the person has completed successfully and professionally.
Line 14: Line 16:
(how to define quality output from a person) [#] of LP bugs both reported and triaged.

The main element here is the quality of the responses given to the new bug, and a good understanding of the process and workflow that a bug goes through. This includes moving bugs upstream, and an understanding of the upstream workflow.

== Security ==
[#] of forum posts in the security forums area that show the [CANDIDATE] understands both Linux specific and general security issues. In addition [#] of FAQ/How-To posts on the forums or wiki documents regarding security specific issues.
Line 17: Line 24:
== Security ==
(how to define quality output from a person)
== Development ==
Present a medium sized project that covers the dev requirements.

** In all cases Correct facts are critical, and quality is more critical then count.

Criteria for how to define quality output from a person in a given Focus Group.

Forums

[#] of example posts that showed skilled resolution for dealing with questions from new users. Also examples of how the [CANDIDATE] was able to refine the original question down to what the 'real' issue was so a solution could be offered. In addition [#] of FAQ/How-To posts that show a quality product that allow new users to tackle the problem covered with ease.

Wiki

[#] of wiki pages that show the [CANDIDATE] has produced clear and concise documentation, cleaned up out-of-date documentation or added information that further clarifies the subject

Launchpad Answers

[#] of LP Answers the person has completed successfully and professionally.

Bug Hunting

[#] of LP bugs both reported and triaged.

The main element here is the quality of the responses given to the new bug, and a good understanding of the process and workflow that a bug goes through. This includes moving bugs upstream, and an understanding of the upstream workflow.

Security

[#] of forum posts in the security forums area that show the [CANDIDATE] understands both Linux specific and general security issues. In addition [#] of FAQ/How-To posts on the forums or wiki documents regarding security specific issues.

Development

Present a medium sized project that covers the dev requirements.

** In all cases Correct facts are critical, and quality is more critical then count.

Paultag/UBTCriteria (last edited 2010-07-22 13:14:55 by ip72-213-131-215)