Dne 27.4.2017 v 13:10 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 26.4.2017 v 16:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Dne 26.4.2017 v 14:06 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): >>> On 26/04/17 12:24, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> >>>> As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were >>>> established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure >>>> precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: >>>> >>>> 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] >>>> into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to >>>> apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you >>>> and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. >>> The group's set to invite-only, could you change it in FAS? (Or invite >>> me, please: username is "domcleal".) >> I sponsored you. >> >>>> 2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think >>>> about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the >>>> package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to >>>> ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard >>>> of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of >>>> membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for >>>> sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related >>>> package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, >>>> especially for full time maintainers). >>> I've got nine or so packages I'd be willing to move/co-maintain with the >>> SIG, though I'm unsure if the admin or ownership should be changed (will >>> wait for your fedora-infra question to be answered). >> I sponsored you, but lets see what is the answer ... >> >>> Would setting ownership or admin automatically provide commit access to >>> members of ruby-packagers-sig? >>> >> I assume that once the group is added as an admin of the package, then >> every member of the group can adjust his/her rights. If the group has >> commit bit, then every member of the group can commit. If I am right, >> then it really depends what is the best practice here. Because this >> means to answer questions such as: "how much credit we want to give each >> contributor", because somebody might be proud to be listed explicitly as >> a maintainer and somebody else probably does not care. >> >> > So if I get this [1] right (and actually I discussed this with Pingou on > IRC), then the ideal setup should be: > > 1) Group cannot be administrator, so there have to be at least one > explicit "human" administrator (this is to prevent individual from the > group to take control over the package). > 2) Group should have commit bit, this allows everybody from the group to > do changes to package in dist-git. > 3) Group should have "watchbugzilla" to allow group to be notified about > BZ associated with the package. > 4) Group should have "watchcommits" to notify the group members about > changes in the package dist-git. > 5) Optionally, the group can become PoC of the package. This results in > change of default assignee in BZ, nothing else. Keep in mind, that > "watchbugzilla" is still needed, because the default assignee is not in > CC list by default and change of assignee in BZ would mean the group is > not notified about the BZ anymore. > > I'll try to send PR updating the groups documentation of pkgdb [2].
https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/pull/414 Vít _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
