On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:03:12 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > In order to reduce the complexity in getting started with Extras, we have made > a few adjustments in the past to avoid making EditGroup membership a > requirement for Extras contributors. At present, some pages, like > CVSSyncNeeded, have special ACLs that avoid the normal EditGroup requirement. > > I'd like to know where Extras contributors might currently need EditGroup > membership in order to perform required tasks. Until we have a single > sign-on ability (which is an Infrastructure to-do item), I'd like to enable > Extras contributors to do their jobs without requiring EditGroup membership. > While EditGroup membership is a small step for members of cvsextras, it is > one step that we can avoid, and every little bit helps in the overcomplicated > process that new contributors must currently complete. > > Candidates for adjustment include pages that any Extras contributor needs to > edit but do not provide content to end-users. Eligible pages might include > tracking pages, schedules or task lists. Ineligible pages would include SIG > pages, documentation pages or policy pages. Some examples that I have > already seen for eligible pages are the FCx Status pages, User Registry, > Orphaned Packages List and Wish List. Does anyone have other pages to > suggest or any reasons why these examples shouldn't be opened up? Why should the FCx Status pages, the User Registry, the Orphaned Packages List be opened up to non-Contributors? Especially the FCx Status pages must not be writable by anyone who does not have a valid FE Account, since the requests added to those pages may result in changes to the repository. The Wiki is our "poor man's ticket-system" in this case. If more became known about the OTRS that has been set up in Fedora infrastructure, maybe we could switch to using that one for some of the FE related requests, too? -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
