On 4 May 2018 at 12:48, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are >>>> currently members. >>>> >>>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members? >>> >>> I don't think so. >>> >>> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from >>> pit-authorization-template >>> >>> [/documents] >>> @member = rw >>> @legal = rw >>> @pmc-chairs = rw >>> @staff = rw >>> @svnadmins = rw >>> whimsysvn = r >>> * = >>> >>> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply >>> provide them with a link that they can't follow. >> >> The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether >> or not an ICLA has been filed. >> >> Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will >> also hide the filename, which may provide private info)? >> If so, should we only show the ICLA status? > > I'm confused. The set of people who have filed an ICLA is supposed to > be a proper superset of the set of committers.
I think that's true now (it was not originally as some were lost), but as I wrote earlier, some PMCs expect to be able to check if someone has an ICLA using Whimsy. They see the information for some entries, and expect it to be present for all. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be1c40c17eadf815548bb52d6824386a120d9546cc7398142a0bb75a@%3Cprivate.openoffice.apache.org%3E Indeed I was a bit surprised not to find the info for a committer, even though I am a member. At the least, I think we need to show to members the links for all committers. But to avoid confusing non-members I think it would be better to always show the info (without the links if the user has no access). > Put another way: if you find a committer using whimsy, you should > assume that an ICLA has been filed. But not finding a committer using > whimsy does NOT imply that an ICLA has not been filed. Yes, I assume that is true now, but it's not necessarily common knowledge. > - Sam Ruby
