FAS Group and Group permissions

[Eric Christensen]

We seem to have two FAS groups of interest: security-team[0] and gitfedora-
security-team[1].  The prior is just a membership group while the latter 
allows commit access to the fedora-security-team git repo[2].

I propose we put all the members of the membership group onto the git group 
(and maybe they can by regularly synchronized automatically?).  I also propose 
that we remove all the folks from the membership group that don't seem to be 
participating (as in, if you reply to this email with a meaningful response 
you get to stay on).

Thoughts?

[0] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/security-team
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/gitfedora-security-team
[2] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-security-team.git

--Eric

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 06:00:32PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
>  I propose we put all the members of the membership group onto the
> git
>  group (and maybe they can by regularly synchronized automatically?).
>  I also propose that we remove all the folks from the membership group
>  that don't seem to be participating (as in, if you reply to this
>  email with a meaningful response you get to stay on). 
+1 to this plan. But don't consider this a meanful response in that
sense, because at this point in my career I have no business being on a
security team. :)


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[David Cafaro]

On 05/27/2015 06:00 PM, Eric Christensen wrote:
>  We seem to have two FAS groups of interest: security-team[0] and
> gitfedora-
>  security-team[1].  The prior is just a membership group while the latter 
>  allows commit access to the fedora-security-team git repo[2].
>  
>  I propose we put all the members of the membership group onto the git group 
>  (and maybe they can by regularly synchronized automatically?).  I also propose 
>  that we remove all the folks from the membership group that don't seem to be 
>  participating (as in, if you reply to this email with a meaningful response 
>  you get to stay on).
>  
>  Thoughts?
>   
Would probably be helpful when new tools to improve the process come up
(like your scripts).  Just makes sense from a role responsibility view.

Cheers,
David

[Fabio Olive Leite]

On 2015-05-27 Eric Christensen wrote:
>  We seem to have two FAS groups of interest: security-team[0] and
>  gitfedora- security-team[1].  The prior is just a membership group
>  while the latter allows commit access to the fedora-security-team git
>  repo[2]. 
I just applied to the membership group. :-)

>  I propose we put all the members of the membership group onto the
> git
>  group (and maybe they can by regularly synchronized automatically?). 
I would still have it as a separate membership, for people that
actually want to help maintain scripts and stuff in the repo. We still
must document it somewhere, of course, so that we don't have to be
surprised finding it again in some months. :)

>  I also propose that we remove all the folks from the membership
> group
>  that don't seem to be participating (as in, if you reply to this
>  email with a meaningful response you get to stay on). 
A meaningful response. :-)

-- 
Fábio Olivé --- Seja hoje melhor do que você foi ontem.
PGP: F1C1 1876 3922 1906 6631  0C31 92A5 9276 250D 8380

[P J P]

>  On Friday, 29 May 2015 12:46 AM, Fabio Olive Leite
> <fabio.olive(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > On 2015-05-27 Eric Christensen wrote:
> > We seem to have two FAS groups of interest: security-team[0] and
> > gitfedora- security-team[1].  The prior is just a membership group
> > while the latter allows commit access to the fedora-security-team git
> > repo[2].
>
>  I just applied to the membership group. :-) 

  Applied to both the groups.


> > I propose we put all the members of the membership group onto the
> git
> > group (and maybe they can by regularly synchronized automatically?).
>
>  I would still have it as a separate membership, for people that
>  actually want to help maintain scripts and stuff in the repo. We still
>  must document it somewhere, of course, so that we don't have to be
>  surprised finding it again in some months. :) 
  Yes, +1. Separate is better, as not all members need to maintain scripts/tools etc.


---
Regards
   -P J P
http://feedmug.com