Hi folks!
To go with the draft SOP for handling group membership requests, here's a draft SOP for applying to be a sponsor, and handling those applications:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_sop_becoming_a_sponsor
again I kept it pretty simple, I don't think it's even worth setting super-specific rules for the 'disputed application' case as it seems likely to be rare or never happen. There's not much reason to 'maliciously' become a group sponsor, after all.
The currently-broken link will obviously point to the other SOP, if both are accepted.
Again, comments/suggestions welcome!
On 1/9/20 3:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
To go with the draft SOP for handling group membership requests, here's a draft SOP for applying to be a sponsor, and handling those applications:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_sop_becoming_a_sponsor
again I kept it pretty simple, I don't think it's even worth setting super-specific rules for the 'disputed application' case as it seems likely to be rare or never happen. There's not much reason to 'maliciously' become a group sponsor, after all.
The currently-broken link will obviously point to the other SOP, if both are accepted.
Again, comments/suggestions welcome!
This certainly is in line with what seems to be current practice. My concern is with "managerial" review. After all you got pinged by someone to do this. So I imagine this will be looked at with an eye to some goals they want to achieve. In that regard, this seems a bit weak to me. I would expect that there would be at least a "time and experience" in the QA group requirement. I would think you would want someone who understands the group and what is does in some detail. Would you really accept someone as a sponsor a few days or weeks after becoming sponsored themselves regardless of their background?
There are provisions for people to review and object, but with no criteria to go by that can get very dicey very quickly.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 18:45 -0500, pmkellly@frontier.com wrote:
On 1/9/20 3:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
To go with the draft SOP for handling group membership requests, here's a draft SOP for applying to be a sponsor, and handling those applications:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_sop_becoming_a_sponsor
again I kept it pretty simple, I don't think it's even worth setting super-specific rules for the 'disputed application' case as it seems likely to be rare or never happen. There's not much reason to 'maliciously' become a group sponsor, after all.
The currently-broken link will obviously point to the other SOP, if both are accepted.
Again, comments/suggestions welcome!
This certainly is in line with what seems to be current practice. My concern is with "managerial" review. After all you got pinged by someone to do this.
The 'ping' was by Alessio, a member here :) He filed a ticket asking to become a sponsor: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/603 and it reminded me we have no processes or policy here. It's nothing to do with 'management' (whether Fedora or RH).
So I imagine this will be looked at with an eye to some goals they want to achieve. In that regard, this seems a bit weak to me. I would expect that there would be at least a "time and experience" in the QA group requirement. I would think you would want someone who understands the group and what is does in some detail. Would you really accept someone as a sponsor a few days or weeks after becoming sponsored themselves regardless of their background?
I don't really see a problem, to be honest. All a sponsor can do is sponsor other people, that's it. Being a member of the qa group is not an incredibly privileged position, it basically gets you CLA+1 so you can vote and edit the wiki and stuff. I just don't foresee any way for things to go terribly wrong here. The worst thing a sponsor can do is sponsor someone they shouldn't have, and if that happens we can easily *un*sponsor them again.
Giving people admin permissions would be a bigger deal, but we're not talking about that here.
If we do turn out to have problems we can always tighten things up, but I don't want to build a whole big procedural bureaucracy from the start if we're not gonna need it...
On 1/9/20 7:21 PM, Adam Williamson
If we do turn out to have problems we can always tighten things up, but I don't want to build a whole big procedural bureaucracy from the start if we're not gonna need it...
Sorry, just some of my history showing up. Though my career I have been a member of many groups that were reorganized, absorbed, and otherwise processed. So I have a certain function in my mental radar that watches for signs of such things.
Though I never worked for them, but I have had a lot of contact with the current parent. As a customer and sitting on standards committees with them. I think I have a pretty good feel for how they like to operate. Which is a lot like companies I have worked for.
I have found that one of the things that new parents like to do is review the new child's processes, procedures, policies, etc. Having done that they provide advice that ranges from gentle suggestions to "do it this way" directives.
This mental function got switched on when I learned of the new parent.
Sorry to have bothered you with this. I just thought that "Sponsor" would likely be one of the key words that would get the attention of a new parent.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 9:35 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi folks!
To go with the draft SOP for handling group membership requests, here's a draft SOP for applying to be a sponsor, and handling those applications:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_sop_becoming_a_sponsor
again I kept it pretty simple, I don't think it's even worth setting super-specific rules for the 'disputed application' case as it seems likely to be rare or never happen. There's not much reason to 'maliciously' become a group sponsor, after all.
The currently-broken link will obviously point to the other SOP, if both are accepted.
Again, comments/suggestions welcome!
LGTM
-
Adam Williamson -
Kamil Paral -
pmkellly＠frontier.com