On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 5:42 AM Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is only editing the wiki a role nowadays? Potentially. > There is no community group > around wiki-editing, no team, no SIG. So? > 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. > I agree, that's the ideal case. But there are still a lot of things that live in the wiki. Change proposals, elections nominations, QA policies, talking points, screenshot libraries, common bugs, etc. Plus the fact that we use it for scratch space means we need to give people the ability to edit it for that purpose, even if they're not active in ways that require a FAS group membership. > 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. > Which is, by itself, a good argument for keeping the group. > 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. > I have no objection to Fedora Join handling this. I think that's a big benefit. But the temporary membership aspect is what concerns me. What if someone just wants to have the ability to edit a few wiki pages? > 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: > It's not about communication, it's about agreeing that this form of contribution is no longer one we'll account for. > 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]. > But it's not a technical decision, so whether infra is in agreement or not is irrelevant. Why do we need to retire the group? Why not hand it over to Join and let it exist as-is? Join can audit the group over time and remove people who have membership in other groups, then they can work with the people who don't and help them find a new home if they want it. But I think the *existence* of this group is still valid. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ 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
