UBTCriteria
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2010-04-19 03:06:34
332
Comment:
|
1510
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from a person) | [#] of wiki pages that show the [CANDIDATE] has produced clear and concise documentation, cleaned up out-of-date documentation or added information that further clarifies the subject |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)