On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:26:08 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote: > > If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him and > > others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The > > proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in > > relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we > > can to the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them > > too. And make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it, > > whichever way around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges. > > And then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for > > anything in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting. > > I thought you meant to ( or worried that it gradually will ) revoke > it to it's previous status but why dont you just add everybody to the > fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried? > > JBG I think for the sake of sanity, having the group with a name that's clearly tied to it's purpose would be easier from an administration standpoint. Also wouldn't just appropriating the fedorabugs group have a negative impact on that group? Just a thought. // Roshi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
