Nemo <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #10 from Nemo <> ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Can't we simply be explicit (i.e.,
> <,members>)?

With or without the current [[+2]] approval process that currently entails?
(Both cases would require process changes...)

(In reply to comment #9)
> Because as far as I know, it's also used for access to some other services
> too
> (I think the test logstash is an example, as it's still under development and
> contains private logs). It's modeled after the ldap/ops group, which has
> existed since labs launched.

I don't think there's any need to rethink this LDAP group from scratch. I think
most if not all the people in the group who ever used +2 also had such
permission via other groups (particularly for "their" extensions). It would be
nice to have
1) a list of group members who ever used +2,
2) a list for the subset of (1) which could perform said +2 thanks to wmf group
From that we can understand how big a change this would be. We might discover
we only need a handful tweaks to some more specific groups' membership.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to