On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 5:42 AM Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Is only editing the wiki a role nowadays?
Potentially.
There is no community group
around wiki-editing, no team, no SIG.
So?
Since our focus moved to docs, the
wiki has been deemed a scratch board for teams to use implying that one
would be a member of one of these teams already. So, if someone wants
to only edit the wiki, they should ideally be pointed to editing/moving
the information to docs instead.
I agree, that's the ideal case. But there are still a lot of things
that live in the wiki. Change proposals, elections nominations, QA
policies, talking points, screenshot libraries, common bugs, etc. Plus
the fact that we use it for scratch space means we need to give people
the ability to edit it for that purpose, even if they're not active in
ways that require a FAS group membership.
The most common case in which people request wikiedit access
currently
appears to be to set up their user pages---hubs was supposed to host
user profiles and get rid of user pages on the wiki IIRC but that got
shelved, unfortunately.
Which is, by itself, a good argument for keeping the group.
By retiring "wikiedit", we do not take away that role
should someone
come looking for it. We're switching who handles it, and what FAS group
is used. Instead of infra doing it, Fedora Join does it, and instead of
using "wikiedit", we use the fedora-join FAS group where we provide
users with temporary membership---if at all required for whatever
purpose (not just wiki editing). The difference here would be that the
Fedora Join SIG members would speak to these people to see why the CLA+1
requirement cropped up in the first place.
I have no objection to Fedora Join handling this. I think that's a big
benefit. But the temporary membership aspect is what concerns me. What
if someone just wants to have the ability to edit a few wiki pages?
Sure, what can we do to make it more explicit? We've spread the
word
using the commblog and an e-mail to -devel announce already:
It's not about communication, it's about agreeing that this form of
contribution is no longer one we'll account for.
Hrm, if Infra and Fedora-Join are in agreement over this change of
responsibility and process, I think we're OK to proceed. It has taken
three months to get this far and it has been discussed with Mindshare in
detail[1].
But it's not a technical decision, so whether infra is in agreement or
not is irrelevant. Why do we need to retire the group? Why not hand it
over to Join and let it exist as-is? Join can audit the group over
time and remove people who have membership in other groups, then they
can work with the people who don't and help them find a new home if
they want it. But I think the *existence* of this group is still
valid.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis