On 26/04/17 12:24, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi everybody, > > As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were > established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure > precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: > > 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] > into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to > apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you > and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. The group's set to invite-only, could you change it in FAS? (Or invite me, please: username is "domcleal".)

> 2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think > about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the > package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to > ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard > of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of > membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for > sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related > package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, > especially for full time maintainers). I've got nine or so packages I'd be willing to move/co-maintain with the SIG, though I'm unsure if the admin or ownership should be changed (will wait for your fedora-infra question to be answered).

Would setting ownership or admin automatically provide commit access to members of ruby-packagers-sig?

Dne 26.4.2017 v 16:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 26.4.2017 v 14:06 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): >> On 26/04/17 12:24, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were >>> established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure >>> precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: >>> >>> 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] >>> into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to >>> apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you >>> and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. >> The group's set to invite-only, could you change it in FAS? (Or invite >> me, please: username is "domcleal".) > I sponsored you. > >>> 2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think >>> about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the >>> package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to >>> ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard >>> of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of >>> membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for >>> sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related >>> package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, >>> especially for full time maintainers). >> I've got nine or so packages I'd be willing to move/co-maintain with the >> SIG, though I'm unsure if the admin or ownership should be changed (will >> wait for your fedora-infra question to be answered). > I sponsored you, but lets see what is the answer ... > >> Would setting ownership or admin automatically provide commit access to >> members of ruby-packagers-sig? >> > I assume that once the group is added as an admin of the package, then > every member of the group can adjust his/her rights. If the group has > commit bit, then every member of the group can commit. If I am right, > then it really depends what is the best practice here. Because this > means to answer questions such as: "how much credit we want to give each > contributor", because somebody might be proud to be listed explicitly as > a maintainer and somebody else probably does not care. > > So if I get this [1] right (and actually I discussed this with Pingou on IRC), then the ideal setup should be: 1) Group cannot be administrator, so there have to be at least one explicit "human" administrator (this is to prevent individual from the group to take control over the package). 2) Group should have commit bit, this allows everybody from the group to do changes to package in dist-git. 3) Group should have "watchbugzilla" to allow group to be notified about BZ associated with the package. 4) Group should have "watchcommits" to notify the group members about changes in the package dist-git. 5) Optionally, the group can become PoC of the package. This results in change of default assignee in BZ, nothing else. Keep in mind, that "watchbugzilla" is still needed, because the default assignee is not in CC list by default and change of assignee in BZ would mean the group is not notified about the BZ anymore. I'll try to send PR updating the groups documentation of pkgdb [2].

Dne 26.4.2017 v 16:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 26.4.2017 v 14:06 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): >> Would setting ownership or admin automatically provide commit access to >> members of ruby-packagers-sig? >> > I assume that once the group is added as an admin of the package, then > every member of the group can adjust his/her rights. If the group has > commit bit, then every member of the group can commit. If I am right, > then it really depends what is the best practice here. Because this > means to answer questions such as: "how much credit we want to give each > contributor", because somebody might be proud to be listed explicitly as > a maintainer and somebody else probably does not care. So if I get this [1] right (and actually I discussed this with Pingou on IRC), then the ideal setup should be: 1) Group cannot be administrator, so there have to be at least one explicit "human" administrator (this is to prevent individual from the group to take control over the package). 2) Group should have commit bit, this allows everybody from the group to do changes to package in dist-git.

3) Group should have "watchbugzilla" to allow group to be notified about BZ associated with the package.

Dne 28.4.2017 v 10:44 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): > On 27/04/17 12:10, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 26.4.2017 v 16:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>> Dne 26.4.2017 v 14:06 Dominic Cleal napsal(a): >>>> Would setting ownership or admin automatically provide commit access to >>>> members of ruby-packagers-sig? >>>> >>> I assume that once the group is added as an admin of the package, then >>> every member of the group can adjust his/her rights. If the group has >>> commit bit, then every member of the group can commit. If I am right, >>> then it really depends what is the best practice here. Because this >>> means to answer questions such as: "how much credit we want to give each >>> contributor", because somebody might be proud to be listed explicitly as >>> a maintainer and somebody else probably does not care. >> So if I get this [1] right (and actually I discussed this with Pingou on >> IRC), then the ideal setup should be: >> >> 1) Group cannot be administrator, so there have to be at least one >> explicit "human" administrator (this is to prevent individual from the >> group to take control over the package). >> 2) Group should have commit bit, this allows everybody from the group to >> do changes to package in dist-git. > I wasn't able to set this on rubygem-Ascii85 in PkgDB, it showed an error: > > User "ruby-packagers-sig" is not in the packager group >> 3) Group should have "watchbugzilla" to allow group to be notified about >> BZ associated with the package. > And when trying to set just watch*, PkgDB showed another error: > > User "ruby-packagers-sig" could not be found in FAS > > Have you been able to update ACLs to the group on any packages? I was > using the PkgDB page at > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acl/rpms/rubygem-Ascii85/give/ to > try and grant access. > Have you followed this [1]? ~~~ For groups, the packager name will then have the format group::<fas_group_name>. If you do not respect this format, pkgdb2 will refuse to add the group as co-maintainer. ~~~

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:24:07PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] > into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to > apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you > and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. Not sure what > should be the mininal level to sponsor members, but the bar shouldn't be > high. May be introduction on ruby-sig ML together with ruby package > review could suffice ... The group is set as invite only. I believe one cannot apply for the group ATM.

> BTW, anybody willing to request badges for being member of Ruby-SIG? ;) Done: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Badges/issue/535

Hi everybody, As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. Not sure what should be the mininal level to sponsor members, but the bar shouldn't be high. May be introduction on ruby-sig ML together with ruby package review could suffice ...

2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, especially for full time maintainers).

Dne 26.4.2017 v 16:23 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Ok, thanks to everywhere who already tried :) > > > Dne 26.4.2017 v 13:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> Hi everybody, >> >> As I promised earlier [1], the ruby-sig and ruby-packagers-sig were >> established, together with ruby-packagers-sig mailing list [2]. Not sure >> precisely how this is going to pan out, but lets try this: >> >> 1) I would appreciate if we can transform the list of SIG members [3] >> into the ruby-sig FAS group. Therefore, can I ask interested parties to >> apply for this group in FAS? As soon as you apply, I will sponsor you >> and I'll select a few of you as additional sponsors. Not sure what >> should be the mininal level to sponsor members, but the bar shouldn't be >> high. May be introduction on ruby-sig ML together with ruby package >> review could suffice ... > I disabled to "invite only" setup for for the ruby-sig group. So you > should be able to apply now. You still needs to be sponsored. > > >> 2) Any of you who is maintaining some interesting package should think >> about (a) adding ruby-packagers-sig group as a administrator of the >> package (b) consider moving the ownership of the package to >> ruby-packages-sig (but please I hope it won't end up just as a junkyard >> of packages you don't have time to maintain anymore ;) ). As of >> membership in ruby-packagers-sig, I propose that the minimal level for >> sponsoring into this group should be maintenance of 5 ruby related >> package and be packager at least 1 year (possibly with some exception, >> especially for full time maintainers). > I should clarify that IMO the "ruby-packagers-sig" ML should be invite > only in the same manner as the ruby-packager-sig FAS group. Once you get > sponsored into the FAS group, you should be added to ML (but this is not > automatic, so the sponsor should not forget).

> To get sponsored into this > group, it is probably good idea to send an email to ruby-sig ML > explaining the reasoning and your history in Fedora. Something along the > lines of proven packager request or packaging sponsor: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_... > > Actually, everybody sponsored into ruby-packager-sig should probably become sponsor in ruby-sig ... Vít _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org