Proposal: let's just use the FAS group already

[Mike Ruckman]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:26:08 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20131216/ac7c1aa1/attachment.sig>