Attract QA'ers

[Erik LaBianca]

> 
> > The QA checklist as it stands is a mishmash of nice ideas,
> > mandatory checks, and instructions.
> 
> What in particular do you think is misplaced?
> 

I guess my primary gripe is that I don't see a clear path from the
fedora.us home page to a successful QA review. There are a LOT of web
pages to visit, and a lot of extra stuff to be inferred along the way.
However, I'm working to fix that and am not yet done so I'll assume that
when I AM done that particular problem will be fixed.

With regard to the QA checklist in particular what I think I'd like to
see is some categorization between showstopper bugs, and "stuff to watch
for". 

As I see it currently, showstoppers are:
	Correct Naming and EVR
	Clean sources of documented origin
	Clean builds on target systems, including correct buildrequires
	Clean install and uninstall
	Secure install policy (non-root daemons and no default passwords
currently)
	Package needs to work

In my opinion, most of the QA checklist either fits one of those
categories, or isn't a showstopper. 

Of these, many can be at least somewhat automated, and I'd sure like to
see it happen eventually. That way the checklist can be 

Does the package pass fedora-qacheck?
Are the upstream sources genuine?
Does the package work?
Is the package secure?

All the nitty gritty details like checking for macros, license vs.
copyright, epoch versions, clean builds on various targets, proper
buildrequires, directory ownership, vfolder categories would be handled
in code by fedora-qacheck, or even better immediately upon package
submission.

Heres to the future!

--erik