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 , the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were
>>> established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list . 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 
>>> 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  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 .