On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:26:08 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you mean "Then limit that group entirely with providing him and
> others with that." - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
> proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
> relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all the QA people we
> can to the group, and in the future, when new people join, add them
> too. And make it inherit fedorabugs (or make fedorabugs inherit it,
> whichever way around it goes) so QA people get editbugs privileges.
> And then...nothing. That's it. We don't actually use the group for
> anything in QA, or anything. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I thought you meant to ( or worried that it gradually will ) revoke
it to it's previous status but why dont you just add everybody to the
fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried?
JBG
I think for the sake of sanity, having the group with a name that's
clearly tied to it's purpose would be easier from an administration
standpoint. Also wouldn't just appropriating the fedorabugs group
have a negative impact on that group?
Just a thought.
// Roshi