Re: Older QC reports

Wayne Niddery (TeamB) wrote:

Here's a good example: I heard about the QC SYSOP opportunity and
thought, "OK, that's one way to contribute in a positive way!" so I
went an looked into it. I was immediately turned off by the
elaborate system of levels and what you had to go through to be
accepted into the ranks of volunteers. Too much like a real job
interviewing process. Big turn off.

Well, so far, about 230 others didn't find that such a big deal. What
exactly bothers you about the expectations for being a SYSOP? Is it
not reasonable to expect some commitment for participation and some
standards for doing the work? What good would it do to have 1000
sysops if 900 of them did not improve the level of the reports in the
system, or didn't do due diligence (reproducing a bug before
promoting it) or just opened everything they looked at?

I already described my reaction to the sysop requirements above. There
are no specific items I object to. Nor do I believe it is unreasonable
to have requirements. It is the presentation of all that stuff that I
found unwelcoming and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Maybe it is and maybe
it isn't but that's just what I saw.

I'm glad so many people have signed up to be QC sysops. I hope they
work out as well as the process is designed to ensure.

.