Critical Path Wranglers - Draft Proposal

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Tue Mar 9 17:05:40 UTC 2010


On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 19:06 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The only thing that worries me about is that it sorta compromises the
> definition of the 'QA' group in FAS. It's a hostage to future fortune:
> right now all the 'QA' group would mean is 'people who can approve
> updates', so it'd be fine...but what if we decide in future we want to
> use it for something else? We're stuck.
> 
> So far QA was planning to use this as an opportunity to actually define
> a sane policy for the FAS group so that it really reflects the people
> who are in QA, which would be nice to have for the future.
> 
> I think if we just want to make it one group, we should make it a *new*
> group, called update_approvers or whatever. Members of QA could
> automatically become members of that group, I guess. 

Yeah, I'd be fine with a proventesters like group to match up with
provenpackagers.  It certainly doesn't have to be the QA group, nor do
we have to make QA membership automatically put you in proventesters.
My point was that it seems wholly unnecessary to have one set of
policies to get "QA" people into a group with rights, and then either
wholesale copy/paste or slightly modify to get "releng" people into a
group with rights.  Makes a lot more sense to have one group, one
policy, one set of rights.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100309/25af0356/attachment.bin 


More information about the test mailing list