On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:06 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > The only thing that worries me about is that it sorta compromises the > definition of the 'QA' group in FAS. It's a hostage to future fortune: > right now all the 'QA' group would mean is 'people who can approve > updates', so it'd be fine...but what if we decide in future we want to > use it for something else? We're stuck. > > So far QA was planning to use this as an opportunity to actually define > a sane policy for the FAS group so that it really reflects the people > who are in QA, which would be nice to have for the future. > > I think if we just want to make it one group, we should make it a *new* > group, called update_approvers or whatever. Members of QA could > automatically become members of that group, I guess. Yeah, I'd be fine with a proventesters like group to match up with provenpackagers. It certainly doesn't have to be the QA group, nor do we have to make QA membership automatically put you in proventesters. My point was that it seems wholly unnecessary to have one set of policies to get "QA" people into a group with rights, and then either wholesale copy/paste or slightly modify to get "releng" people into a group with rights. Makes a lot more sense to have one group, one policy, one set of rights. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
