On Monday 10 July 2006 11:12, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? The objective is to remove the EditGroup requirement, allowing Extras contributors to work without having to obtain EditGroup membership. This saves on small step for Extras contributors who don't want the hassle. We already have Extras contributors that are not in the EditGroup, and they've been working with limitations that may keep them from doing what they need to do. Eventually, our infrastructure should solve this entirely by integrating the Account System for authentication and authorization, but this stop-gap measure might make the lives of some Extras contributors a little easier. If it is decided that all Extras contributors should be required to have EditGroup membership, then the already-loosened wiki pages can be tightened. > > 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. The EditGroup really isn't a good measure of whether or not someone can be trusted. It is a small barrier that takes care of our licensing needs and keeps spammers from attacking the wiki, nothing more. Many members of the EditGroup are not Extras contributors, and not all Extras contributors are members of the EditGroup. > > 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? Now that's a good idea. ;-) https://admin.fedoraproject.org/tickets/customer.pl -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64@xxxxxxxxx http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ --
Attachment:
pgplkA3wrJTYP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
