Karsten Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:13 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
I thought we wanted to get people to editing quickly w/o jumping through
all the hoops. Wouldn't that preclude EditGroup addition?
You are just a few steps ahead, that is all. I got the lawyer-based
permission and guidelines for using a click-through CLA for the Wiki.
When that is setup, we can stop using EditGroup for the site-wide ACLs.
When ... uh, whenever we get to it. I feel guilty every time I see an
addition to EditGroup, but this one is a little lower on the current
priorities. Still, what needs to be done is:
* Click-through page enabled for new users -- must check "Agree" and
then submit the form.
* Click-through page is (probably) an Include() of the CLA contents
itself -- not very proc intensive to do that, since people only see that
page when they create their account.
* Confirm that ACLs for special areas (Docs/) are working.
Anything else? Other than tell people and celebrate?
The dividing line between "click-through is OK" and "need to GPG-sign"
is if the user has the ability to put content directly into a content
storage system from where it goes into a package (then into an ISO.)
So, we can leave Docs/Beats/ open to click-through CLAers because that
content is edited before going into CVS (and a package), all done by
people who have signed the CLA with a GPG key. This is analogous to
patches and such that come in via mailing lists and bugzilla. The
special locations such as Docs/ are Wiki-based publishing points, so
Docs Project contributor guidelines come into play.
FYI All: I did a test on this this weekend and my page save was about
17 seconds, a pretty significant difference. So here's the plan.
1) Grab a list of all the users to be removed (Users not in EditGroup
and not watching any pages)
2) Send a mass email of notification of removal and why
3) Remove users (will make a backup)
4) Enjoy our much faster but still slow save pages.
-Mike
