fedorabugs group (was BugZappers)

[John Poelstra]

Paul W. Frields said the following on 03/02/2009 07:12 AM Pacific Time:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 08:42:08AM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 06:22:27PM +0000, Lalit Dhiri wrote:
>>>>> From: awilliam at redhat.com
>>>>> To: fedora-test-list at redhat.com
>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:02:04 -0800
>>>>> Subject: RE: BugZappers
>>>>>
>>>>> But, if you're still worried, by all means feel free not to sign it. If
>>>>> that's the case, I will take the matter up with the legal folks to see
>>>>> if we can remove the requirement for Bugzappers to sign the CLA.
>>>>> --
>>>> I think it's best to get a response from legal as I will not be signing the CLA.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry
>>> No need to be sorry.  Spot and I have looked at this and determined
>>> there is no need for CLA completion for people who want to work in
>>> Bugzilla.  It's nonsensical given that anyone can make a Bugzilla
>>> account independently to put content in that system.
>>>
>>> We still require any BugZappers who want to post content to the wiki
>>> to complete the CLA -- because if, hypothetically, we wanted to change
>>> the whole wiki at some future point to the Frickin' Foobar Freedom
>>> License, we don't want to have to track down every individual
>>> contributor in order to do so.  The CLA gives us that flexibility
>>> while maintaining the freedom of all users' contributions.
>>>
>>> But again, the point is that we've lifted the cla_done membership
>>> requirement for the "fedorabugs" group, so BugZappers can fully
>>> participate in making better software without any unnecessary hassle.
>>> Bon appetit!
>> How does the affect the workflow of approving people for the 'fedorabugs' 
>> group?  By what criteria do we now approve people?  This should go into an 
>> SOP.
>>
>> FWIW, I think we would do something, I'm just not sure what to suggest.
> 
> Anyone who wants to contribute to bug fixing should be allowed and
> encouraged to help.  Lowering barriers is the whole point of this
> move.
> 
> I would encourage the BugZappers group to adopt a minimum SOP of
> having the applicant send a message to this mailing list -- a
> self-introduction basically.  Make the requirements for that email as
> simple and concise as possible: name, locality, experience level, for
> example.  That will be sufficient to separate bots from humans.
> 
>> I'm not sure if maintainers get or need 'fedorabugs' access so I'm not  
>> sure what this number tells us... there are 1,137 people in 'fedorabugs'.  
>> Is that 1,137 people that are interested in triaging bugs and if so how do 
>> we retain their interest and help?  IOW that number doesn't translate very 
>> well to
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/ActiveTriagers :)
> 
> IIRC, membership in this group is automatic from 'cvsextras' group
> membership (perhaps now this is 'packagers'?).  All package
> maintainers are automatically included, since they need this access to
> work with bugs against their packages.  Thus the number is
> automatically inflated by that membership.
> 
> One could derive a non-packager number by excluding those group
> members from the 'fedorabugs' list, I think.
> 

For the record... here's where FESCo reviewed this issue.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20080124