On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 18:45 -0500, pmkellly@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 1/9/20 3:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > To go with the draft SOP for handling group membership requests, here's > > a draft SOP for applying to be a sponsor, and handling those > > applications: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_sop_becoming_a_sponsor > > > > again I kept it pretty simple, I don't think it's even worth setting > > super-specific rules for the 'disputed application' case as it seems > > likely to be rare or never happen. There's not much reason to > > 'maliciously' become a group sponsor, after all. > > > > The currently-broken link will obviously point to the other SOP, if > > both are accepted. > > > > Again, comments/suggestions welcome! > > > > This certainly is in line with what seems to be current practice. My > concern is with "managerial" review. After all you got pinged by someone > to do this. The 'ping' was by Alessio, a member here :) He filed a ticket asking to become a sponsor: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/603 and it reminded me we have no processes or policy here. It's nothing to do with 'management' (whether Fedora or RH). > So I imagine this will be looked at with an eye to some > goals they want to achieve. In that regard, this seems a bit weak to me. > I would expect that there would be at least a "time and experience" in > the QA group requirement. I would think you would want someone who > understands the group and what is does in some detail. Would you really > accept someone as a sponsor a few days or weeks after becoming sponsored > themselves regardless of their background? I don't really see a problem, to be honest. All a sponsor can do is sponsor other people, that's it. Being a member of the qa group is not an incredibly privileged position, it basically gets you CLA+1 so you can vote and edit the wiki and stuff. I just don't foresee any way for things to go terribly wrong here. The worst thing a sponsor can do is sponsor someone they shouldn't have, and if that happens we can easily *un*sponsor them again. Giving people admin permissions would be a bigger deal, but we're not talking about that here. If we do turn out to have problems we can always tighten things up, but I don't want to build a whole big procedural bureaucracy from the start if we're not gonna need it... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
