Group application standardization

[Mike McGrath]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Paul W. Frields wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 08:00:32PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:03:59PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Thursday 15 April 2010 02:37:29 pm Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > On 04/15/2010 11:56 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > >> >> We've got a group called "disabled_torrent" the rules for application
> > > > >> >> are "Do NOT apply for this group.  It is a disabled group.  Why
> > > > >> >> would you apply for this group?"...  People have applied for this
> > > > >> >> group.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I suspect most of those folks do not read English.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> or they're bot signups...
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, at least some of them were actual people who told me they weren't
> > > > > sure why they signed up for group X.  Mind boggling :)
> > > >
> > > > It is probably a similar subset of the people who want install everything.
> > > >
> > > > When I went through the groups lists there were so many choices I just
> > > > decided to mass submit for some pages as it was easier to have someone
> > > > tell me "Hey you didn't want to do that." versus find out later I
> > > > needed to apply for a group if I wanted to do something.  I am
> > > > guessing it is another example of the too many choices problem: while
> > > > some people can't make any decision from the multitude there are..
> > > > some people have found it more useful to just choose everything to see
> > > > what happens.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe we need some kind of abstraction layer with a wizard,
> > >
> > > that asks some questions on where you would like to contribute. and recommends
> > > groups.
> > >
> > > i.e. im from brasil and want to translate i get offered the general translation
> > > group and the pt_BR one
> > >
> > ... but in general signing up for a group in FAS is the last step of
> > beconming part of a Fedora group.  Which is confusing since signing up for
> > an account and signing the CLA are some of the first things that our
> > announcements have people do.  We need to send people to start communicating
> > with groups right after they sign the CLA (or as a TODO list item in FAS or
> > something) rather than let them explore the FAS interface looking for
> > a group to sign up for.
> >
> > Or we need to change what the groups do so that people really do find that
> > signing up for a group gets them communicating to the groups that can use
> > their help.
>
> These are both really good points.  I know there are myriad ways to
> attack the problem.  Would it be a good starting point, while we
> discuss something better, to have a notice after CLA signup directing
> users to a page of "join a team" links?  (That page might exist on the
> wiki for easier editing.)
>

Your choice of words there is good.  There's a big difference between the
technical act of joining a group and the workflow act of joining a team.

Generally though I'm hearing 2 things:

1) We don't really see a need to standardize on how to join a group.

2) We all agree that we need to spend more time on figuring out a proper
workflow here.

Keep the ideas coming.  I think at least allowing groups to be invite only
(on a per group choice) will be a good step.

	-Mike