On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:20 +0000, Lalit Dhiri wrote: > > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:25:51 +0530 > > From: sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To: awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx > > CC: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: BugZappers > > > > > > > I need people to agree to the CLA before I can approve them. I > > routinely remove people who have an account but are not in the CLA > > group. Perhaps FAS should just shouldn't allow that. > > > > Rahul > > > > -- > > I don't think it mentions in the group list the CLA has to be agreed to first. I think the group list needs to be checked... > > > > May there should be two types of members in Fedorabugs group ie those > that may create patches or other higher level tasks and those that > simply triage and no more. > > > > I can certainly say I do not have the time and quite likely the skills > to create patches so for me to be signing agreements is kinda crazy in > my opinion. But I guess I have missed the point somewhere... Regardless of all the arguments, it's clear that at present we need to make it more obvious that you have to sign the CLA, so I'll look into that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
