Proposal: let's just use the FAS group already

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:26 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" 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 

I don't even know what its previous status was, but no, I certainly
wasn't planning on suggesting we 'gate' anything on qa group membership.

> but why dont you just add everybody to the 
> fedorabugs group and keep this one dead and buried?

People aren't really meant to be directly added to the fedorabugs group,
the design is that you get added to another group that inherits
fedorabugs: the design is for fedorabugs to be simply a tool we use to
grant editbugs status to members of various other groups. And this way
just seems more clear - you're a QA person, you're in the QA group. It
means we don't have to keep explaining and remembering all the
background.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net