Am Dienstag, den 11.01.2011, 16:27 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On 1/11/11 3:58 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > I think I gave enough examples in another mail
> >> >
>
> Repeating the same arguments over and over also does not make them true.
>
> >>>>> > >> > The other group that does also went with a closed Trac.
> >>> > > And that group is?
> >> >
> >> > FAmSCo, as noted in this very thread.
> > Wrong. As mentioned in my very first email in this thread and further
> > explained by JÃrg, FAMSCo's trac is *not* private. It is open to
> > submission by all FAS account holders and people can see their own
> > tickets. I have said that this would be a suitable solution for me,
> > although I'd like to see more transparency if possible.
> >
>
> Now you're just splitting hairs. Jeorg's mail says that they did not
> open the Trac instance. This is what I was referring to.
>
> Making the adjustments to the Trac config that Jeorg suggested is indeed
> an improvement, but it is not "open", as you seem to be pushing for.
> Nor does it operate like any other project.
Jesse, I have no intentions of splitting hairs. Please read my first
mail and tell me where I demand the trac instance to be *completely*
open. I explicitly stated the FAmSCo setup works for me.
If the board is afraid that the process is too open, there are
two
options:
* Restrict ticket access to only board members and ticket creators
(people can see their tickets but not others). This is the setup
FAmSCo uses.
And to be very clear about this: I do understand that FAmSCo does not
fully open their trac. It contains *personal* data like shipping
addresses and back accounts. But this data only happens to be in their
trac *because* it is open to submit tickets by contributors.
Regards,
Christoph
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
