Re: employment related packager groups
On 2023-05-29 10:50, Ben Cotton wrote: I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of it. It certainly beats a company using a shared account against policy to allow for multiple maintainers. On the other hand, what are the practical use cases here? As Kevin and Zbigniew said in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 , interest-based groups instead of employer-based groups seem like a better approach. Seems like the main place this would be used is when the org is the upstream project, and even then, an interest-based group open to the broader community seems more in the Fedora spirit. So to address the specific questions: With my Meta hat on, something like this would be useful for us in a few ways: - it makes it easier to onboard new internal folks to help out with package maintenance - it generally removes toil and makes it harder to forget to add someone else as admin to the packages - it makes tools like the packager dashboard more useful, as we'd be able to track all packages of interest from a single place If all the packages that an organization maintains are within the same space, I agree that a traditional SIG would work better, but that doesn't make a ton of sense in our specific example. Also, full disclosure: we actually already have a FAS group (see https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10586) that was created a while ago so that we could make a copr group for packit builds of our packages (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/meta/coprs/). We've refrained from using it for anything else until there's clarity around desired usage and policies from FESCo. Cheers Davide ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 01:50:04PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of > it. It certainly beats a company using a shared account against policy > to allow for multiple maintainers. On the other hand, what are the > practical use cases here? As Kevin and Zbigniew said in > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 , interest-based groups instead of > employer-based groups seem like a better approach. Seems like the main > place this would be used is when the org is the upstream project, and > even then, an interest-based group open to the broader community seems > more in the Fedora spirit. So to address the specific questions: Yeah, I think some of these groups cross large areas of interest, so it's hard to say 'xyz sig' because they are interested in a number of disparite areas. > > Should such groups require FESCo approval? > > Yes. These groups should be exceptional cases. > > > If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? > > The group must represent something for with there is no broader > community interest. (e.g. I'm interesting in maintaining packages > produced by FunnelFiascCorp, but there's no broader FunnelFiasco SIG > because it's not a broader thing like weather or program management) > > > Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make > > a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners > > in case of problems? > > No, because it won't be maintained. (I'd like to say yes, but I know > better) The fact that it's a group means we can see who the group > members are and thus can figure out how to contact them if needed. Yeah, thats definitely a good point. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm in favor of it. It certainly beats a company using a shared account against policy to allow for multiple maintainers. On the other hand, what are the practical use cases here? As Kevin and Zbigniew said in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 , interest-based groups instead of employer-based groups seem like a better approach. Seems like the main place this would be used is when the org is the upstream project, and even then, an interest-based group open to the broader community seems more in the Fedora spirit. So to address the specific questions: > Should such groups require FESCo approval? Yes. These groups should be exceptional cases. > If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? The group must represent something for with there is no broader community interest. (e.g. I'm interesting in maintaining packages produced by FunnelFiascCorp, but there's no broader FunnelFiasco SIG because it's not a broader thing like weather or program management) > Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make > a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners > in case of problems? No, because it won't be maintained. (I'd like to say yes, but I know better) The fact that it's a group means we can see who the group members are and thus can figure out how to contact them if needed. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 07:49:54AM +0100, Philip Wyett wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 07:50 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ali Erdinc Koroglu > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > > > > > > > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > > > > > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used > > > > > for > > > > > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > > > > > like. > > > > > > > > > > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > > > > > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and > > > > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > > > > > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used > > > > > to > > > > > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > > > > > > > > Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? > > > > Or will that be a separate step? > > > > > > I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group > > > membership is a > > > requirement" Right, packager would be required. It's worth noting however that new members could easily be added to the packager group by using the co-maintain process. But thats fine, IMHO. > > IMO, we should not call these SIGs either. I'm not sure exactly what > > the naming convention should be, but one thought would be > > "corp-maint_" (or flip it around if you wish). > > > > e.g., "corp-maint_aiven" for Aiven employees. > > > > > > Maybe 'org' in the naming rather than 'corp' as not all businesses and > entities are corps. More > sedate naming and would cover other distros, charities and other groups in > general? Yeah, org sounds good, thats a great suggestion! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 08:56 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Philip Wyett > wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 07:50 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ali Erdinc Koroglu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > > > > > > > > > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to > > > > > > allow a > > > > > > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been > > > > > > used for > > > > > > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or > > > > > > the > > > > > > like. > > > > > > > > > > > > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > > > > > > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and > > > > > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > > > > > > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be > > > > > > used to > > > > > > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > > > > > > > > > > Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager > > > > > group? > > > > > Or will that be a separate step? > > > > > > > > I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group > > > > membership is a > > > > requirement" > > > > > > > > > > IMO, we should not call these SIGs either. I'm not sure exactly what > > > the naming convention should be, but one thought would be > > > "corp-maint_" (or flip it around if you wish). > > > > > > e.g., "corp-maint_aiven" for Aiven employees. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe 'org' in the naming rather than 'corp' as not all businesses and > > entities are corps. More > > sedate naming and would cover other distros, charities and other groups in > > general? > > > > Sure. I'm fine with that. I think it's just important to not call it a > SIG, because it's not a "special interest group" in the sense that we > use it for. > Agreed. SIG is not appropriate in this instance. > > -- > > *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** > > > > > > Associations: > > > > * Debian Maintainer (DM) > > * Fedora/EPEL Maintainer. > > * Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation. > > > > Right, it's fairly well-known how broad my association in FOSS is too, > so I totally get this point. :) > Indeed. A man after my own heart. ;-) Regards Phil -- *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** Associations: * Debian Maintainer (DM) * Fedora/EPEL Maintainer. * Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation. WWW: https://kathenas.org Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg Twitter: @kathenasorg Instagram: @kathenasorg IRC: kathenas GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Philip Wyett wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 07:50 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ali Erdinc Koroglu > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > > > > > > > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > > > > > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used > > > > > for > > > > > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > > > > > like. > > > > > > > > > > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > > > > > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and > > > > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > > > > > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used > > > > > to > > > > > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > > > > > > > > Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? > > > > Or will that be a separate step? > > > > > > I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group > > > membership is a > > > requirement" > > > > > > > IMO, we should not call these SIGs either. I'm not sure exactly what > > the naming convention should be, but one thought would be > > "corp-maint_" (or flip it around if you wish). > > > > e.g., "corp-maint_aiven" for Aiven employees. > > > > > > Maybe 'org' in the naming rather than 'corp' as not all businesses and > entities are corps. More > sedate naming and would cover other distros, charities and other groups in > general? > Sure. I'm fine with that. I think it's just important to not call it a SIG, because it's not a "special interest group" in the sense that we use it for. > > -- > *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** > > > Associations: > > * Debian Maintainer (DM) > * Fedora/EPEL Maintainer. > * Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation. > Right, it's fairly well-known how broad my association in FOSS is too, so I totally get this point. :) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 07:50 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ali Erdinc Koroglu > wrote: > > > > > > On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > > > > > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > > > > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for > > > > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > > > > like. > > > > > > > > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > > > > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and > > > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > > > > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to > > > > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > > > > > > Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? > > > Or will that be a separate step? > > > > I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group > > membership is a > > requirement" > > > > IMO, we should not call these SIGs either. I'm not sure exactly what > the naming convention should be, but one thought would be > "corp-maint_" (or flip it around if you wish). > > e.g., "corp-maint_aiven" for Aiven employees. > > Maybe 'org' in the naming rather than 'corp' as not all businesses and entities are corps. More sedate naming and would cover other distros, charities and other groups in general? Regards Phil -- *** Playing the game for the games own sake. *** Associations: * Debian Maintainer (DM) * Fedora/EPEL Maintainer. * Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation. WWW: https://kathenas.org Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg Twitter: @kathenasorg Instagram: @kathenasorg IRC: kathenas GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:52 PM Ali Erdinc Koroglu wrote: > > > > On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > >> Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > >> group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for > >> SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > >> like. > >> > >> FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > >> ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and > >> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > >> ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to > >> help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > > > > Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? > > Or will that be a separate step? > > I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group > membership is a requirement" > IMO, we should not call these SIGs either. I'm not sure exactly what the naming convention should be, but one thought would be "corp-maint_" (or flip it around if you wish). e.g., "corp-maint_aiven" for Aiven employees. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On 27/05/2023 15:18, Florian Weimer wrote: * Kevin Fenzi: Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the like. FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? Or will that be a separate step? I think this can be like that: "To join the foocorp-SIG, packager group membership is a requirement" -- Ali Erdinc Koroglu Intel, SSE | Linux OS Systems Engineering ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
* Kevin Fenzi: > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > like. > > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. Will these groups automatically make members part of the packager group? Or will that be a separate step? Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On 26/05/2023 19:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Should such groups require FESCo approval? Yes. If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? All group members must prove that they're familiar with Fedora packaging guidelines, i.e. they must receive sponsorship through the standard procedure and not from their employer (may be biased). -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
Il 26/05/23 19:39, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > This would help companies manage the people they pay to contribute. > It would allow them to more easily add/remove employees as time goes on > instead of someone having to go and add/remove someone from a bunch of > packages. I'd like this to happen. While Fedora users are doing a great job in maintaining packages in their free time, I think having payed employees working on this can enhance package quality and overall Fedora stability in its whole. We just make sure no one is sponsored into packager group only because they are added to a company group... they still have to prove their understanding in Fedora packaging guidelines. I'd say that these groups should be distinguished from SIGs by using a different suffix, i.e. 'foocorp-corp' for grouping by company interests in contrast to 'foo-sig' for grouping packages by specific 'foo' area or 'foo' stack. I would be however against having a group as main admin of packages. Groups can already be set as main POC for bugs and this is enough, IMO. The primary maintainer should be a real person, while a group can be set as admin of a package. Mattia ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
> Am 27.05.2023 um 07:41 schrieb Benson Muite : > > On 5/26/23 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Greetings everyone. >> …. >> Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make >> a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners >> in case of problems? >> > Yes. Should also have a list of group members. >> Thoughts? A big yes for documentation. But to get attention and to get included in the Fedora flow it has to be docs, and definitely not a wiki! Docs team can / will / is willing to help to set up everything needed. -- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy p...@fedoraproject.org Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST /UTC+2) Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: employment related packager groups
On 5/26/23 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings everyone. > > Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a > group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for > SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the > like. > Thanks for the notice. Can comment on ticket as well if preferred, though possibly the tickets should be merged. > FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. > ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) > ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to > help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. > This would help companies manage the people they pay to contribute. > It would allow them to more easily add/remove employees as time goes on > instead of someone having to go and add/remove someone from a bunch of > packages. > > So, I promised to start a thread here about this. > > Should such groups require FESCo approval? > Probably yes. > If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? > May need to revise SIG guidelines, it may be helpful for technology related to a company rather than just company employees since users of the technology may want to engage in packaging. With increasing diversity in computer architectures, expect to see a number of specialized builds. Encouraging inclusion of packages is good - there are people who may not be packagers but can do the initial preparation to enable a SIG to adopt a package. However, want good reviews as well, there may be a disincentive for thorough reviews just to include a package. May also be good to run a light weight version of fedora review on packages to ensure they get updated after they have been included. > Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make > a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners > in case of problems? > Yes. Should also have a list of group members. > Thoughts? > > kevin > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
employment related packager groups
Greetings everyone. Today we have packager groups used in src.fedoraproject.org to allow a group of people to maintain packages. In the past this has been used for SIGs/packaging areas. ie, python-packaging-sig or robotics-sig or the like. FESCo has been asked about creating company related groups. ( https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2966 and https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2929 ) ie, foocorp-sig / foocopr-packagers. These groups would then be used to help maintain packages that foocorp finds of interest/value. This would help companies manage the people they pay to contribute. It would allow them to more easily add/remove employees as time goes on instead of someone having to go and add/remove someone from a bunch of packages. So, I promised to start a thread here about this. Should such groups require FESCo approval? If so, what would be requirements to approve/deny? Should we require some documentation? ie, should the group have to make a doc/wiki page explaining what it's for and how to reach group owners in case of problems? Thoughts? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
