On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 14:39:20 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:38 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I am not sure we can retire the existing group unless we contact all of > > the members and ask them to go through the new process thought right? Yes. We'd have to send out an e-mail to wikiedit-members@fp.o on the lines of "this group is being retired, if you are not part of another group and still need membership to wikiedit to be CLA+1, please head over to the Fedora Join SIG". The Fedora Join SIG can send this out and let infra know. > > > > That may be more trouble than it's worth. > > > Thanks for bringing this up. Retiring the wikiedit group isn't a > technical decision, it's a community one. The wikiedit group says "if > you're just here to edit the wiki, you're still a valid member of our > community". Retiring it says we no longer consider that a valid role > and that we expect community members to participate in some other way. Is only editing the wiki a role nowadays? There is no community group around wiki-editing, no team, no SIG. Since our focus moved to docs, the wiki has been deemed a scratch board for teams to use implying that one would be a member of one of these teams already. So, if someone wants to only edit the wiki, they should ideally be pointed to editing/moving the information to docs instead. The most common case in which people request wikiedit access currently appears to be to set up their user pages---hubs was supposed to host user profiles and get rid of user pages on the wiki IIRC but that got shelved, unfortunately. By retiring "wikiedit", we do not take away that role should someone come looking for it. We're switching who handles it, and what FAS group is used. Instead of infra doing it, Fedora Join does it, and instead of using "wikiedit", we use the fedora-join FAS group where we provide users with temporary membership---if at all required for whatever purpose (not just wiki editing). The difference here would be that the Fedora Join SIG members would speak to these people to see why the CLA+1 requirement cropped up in the first place. > That's a valid position for us to take, but it's one that should be > taken explicitly. Sure, what can we do to make it more explicit? We've spread the word using the commblog and an e-mail to -devel announce already: - https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-join-is-trying-a-new-people-focused-workflow-for-newcomers/ - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/YL7BPA6PIZP2UWNEMCQDI7QKLU5B6EX2/ > If we want to move forward on this, we should wait until the new FCAIC > is in place and give them the opportunity to weigh in. Hrm, if Infra and Fedora-Join are in agreement over this change of responsibility and process, I think we're OK to proceed. It has taken three months to get this far and it has been discussed with Mindshare in detail[1]. [1] https://pagure.io/mindshare/issue/147 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
