On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 08:42:08AM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 06:22:27PM +0000, Lalit Dhiri wrote: >>>> From: awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx >>>> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:02:04 -0800 >>>> Subject: RE: BugZappers >>>> >>>> But, if you're still worried, by all means feel free not to sign it. If >>>> that's the case, I will take the matter up with the legal folks to see >>>> if we can remove the requirement for Bugzappers to sign the CLA. >>>> -- >>> I think it's best to get a response from legal as I will not be signing the CLA. >>> >>> Sorry >> >> No need to be sorry. Spot and I have looked at this and determined >> there is no need for CLA completion for people who want to work in >> Bugzilla. It's nonsensical given that anyone can make a Bugzilla >> account independently to put content in that system. >> >> We still require any BugZappers who want to post content to the wiki >> to complete the CLA -- because if, hypothetically, we wanted to change >> the whole wiki at some future point to the Frickin' Foobar Freedom >> License, we don't want to have to track down every individual >> contributor in order to do so. The CLA gives us that flexibility >> while maintaining the freedom of all users' contributions. >> >> But again, the point is that we've lifted the cla_done membership >> requirement for the "fedorabugs" group, so BugZappers can fully >> participate in making better software without any unnecessary hassle. >> Bon appetit! > > How does the affect the workflow of approving people for the 'fedorabugs' > group? By what criteria do we now approve people? This should go into an > SOP. > > FWIW, I think we would do something, I'm just not sure what to suggest. Anyone who wants to contribute to bug fixing should be allowed and encouraged to help. Lowering barriers is the whole point of this move. I would encourage the BugZappers group to adopt a minimum SOP of having the applicant send a message to this mailing list -- a self-introduction basically. Make the requirements for that email as simple and concise as possible: name, locality, experience level, for example. That will be sufficient to separate bots from humans. > I'm not sure if maintainers get or need 'fedorabugs' access so I'm not > sure what this number tells us... there are 1,137 people in 'fedorabugs'. > Is that 1,137 people that are interested in triaging bugs and if so how do > we retain their interest and help? IOW that number doesn't translate very > well to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/ActiveTriagers :) IIRC, membership in this group is automatic from 'cvsextras' group membership (perhaps now this is 'packagers'?). All package maintainers are automatically included, since they need this access to work with bugs against their packages. Thus the number is automatically inflated by that membership. One could derive a non-packager number by excluding those group members from the 'fedorabugs' list, I think. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
