Paul W. Frields said the following on 03/02/2009 07:12 AM Pacific Time:
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.
For the record... here's where FESCo reviewed this issue.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20080124
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
