My thoughts.... I totally agree with having single group access. At the bug stomping party when I was comfortable with making commits I had to have someone go in and approve me, for each guide. With that same thought, I have been helping out anywhere I can get my hands on. So with me helping out with 3 or 4 different projects it could have taken a lot more time for me to get access to those guides, and created more work for others if I could not help out. Luckily I had most from the bug party. So it worked out a little different for me. Also when I ask to help out on a particular guide, usually one of the first questions is if I have been approved for commit access to that guide. Single group would remove having to "check up" on (new)contributors to see if they have been approved for each and every guide that they would be allowed to work on. Seems like a good idea to me. I hope this makes sense. :-) -- Eli M emad78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx elijahm17@xxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: David Nalley <david.nalley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-to: For participants of the Documentation Project <docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: For participants of the Documentation Project <docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Guide/notes/document sponsorship Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 22:10:43 -0400 During the Docs meeting tonight the issue of moving all documents under a single fas group to grant access came up. jjmcd brought up several issues - and I think they are worth considering. More importantly he brought up a potential solution, that I also think is worth considering. I'd encourage you to read through the log if you weren't there. Specifically as downsides to the proposal he enumerated the following: * there is currently a progression from member -> committer -> publisher - which we'd largely lose. * currently new members tend to be 'frightened' by getting their first document commit access, and giving it all in one fell swoop might discourage contributors. (a new contributor echoed that he would feel this way) We discussed at length and said that the problems we were trying to solve were: * Remove barriers to participation, particularly the 'need to find a sponsor for $group during a hackfest' or to help someone get started fresh. * Make it easier for existing contributors to switch to a different document/guide in the event there is some need or push such as the recent work on the User Guide that laubersm led. So jjmcd wisely noted that spreading sponsor powers around would solve most of these problems. Heretofore, most of us have collected memberships and sponsorship as needed. I'd like to propose at a minimum (note that this isn't intended to be a rule or policy) that if you own a document (release notes, a guide, $other_repo_controlled_document) that you become a sponsor for all of our documents. Additionally, someone who is comfortable with our environment, and the processes should also get sponsor rights to all of our documents to solve the above two problems. One of the interesting things is that no one seemed concern about granting access to people. We want to be pretty liberal with that. So, I am bringing this to the list in hopes of generating more discussion, and see if we want to do that moving forward. Thoughts, comments, flames?? David Nalley -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
