Admin question

[Mark Johnson]

Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 07:55 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
>>Karsten,
>>
>>I received mail from the Fedora accounts system asking me to approve
>>someone for CVS access -- strangely enough, the surak guy you asked me
>>about.
> 
> 
> Yeah, we all got those, new feature Elliott put in yesterday.  I don't
> yet know the entire meaning of that part of the admin tools.
> 
> Let's hold off on approving any new people until we have guidelines to
> point them at.  Can't go spanking anyone's hands for reaching in the
> wrong cookie jar until we've posted the Cookie Jar Rules.

Is this the sort of content that would be appropriate for the process doc?

(* mrj reads rest of message...)

Better yet, is the above question (who approves CVS access) plus the issues 
below (who qualifies for CVS access) the kind of stuff I should put in the 
process doc draft?

Too specific? Or a smartly-documented decision procedure?

Feedback, pleeze...

Thanks,
Mark

> 
> 
>>  This seems like a policy question that belongs on the CVS wiki
>>page, but for which I don't have an answer.  Do we give out CVS access
>>to anyone asking for it?  Does CVS access automatically mean write
>>access across the board to the entire store of fedora-docs?  If the
>>answer to both of those is "yes," are we comfortable with that approach?
>>This plays into the idea of sandboxes and how high we want the wood
>>beams around them.  I'll try and get on IRC by morning your time, but
>>feel free to just email if that's more convenient.
> 
> 
> We definitely want some sort of guidelines in place before we give out
> CVS access beyond this immediate group.  I've already been pushing this;
> I asked Rahul yesterday if he wanted to document the admin tool, and he
> could get the CVS access sooner that way.
> 
> Before I give out CVS access, I personally would want to know:
> 
> 1. Who are you?
> 2. What are your plans in CVS?
> 3. What have you done lately that deserves access?
> 
> Our challenge is to lower barriers while setting up appropriate
> obstructions.  What is appropriate to keep in docscvs?  Do we use ACLs
> everywhere or just trust people to stick only where they belong?
> 
> I think the answer to 1. is that they should have done a self
> introduction and participated on the mailing list, maybe even discussed
> their specific doc idea(s).
> 
> This feeds into 2.  Someone needs to be a writer or an editor to have a
> reason for docscvs access.
> 
> And 3. is rather self-evident.  But is it elitist?  I think it certainly
> speaks to the idea of meritocracy.  I won't worry too much yet if it is
> elitist.
> 
> What I really want is a bunch of enthusiastic people humming through CVS
> like honey bees, making sweet documentation.
> 
> Okay, 'nuff for now - Karsten
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> fedora-dsco-list mailing list
> fedora-dsco-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-dsco-list


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Johnson                     <mjohnson at redhat.com>
OS Product Documentation
Engineering, Red Hat, Inc.       <http://www.redhat.com>
Tel: 919.754.4151                Fax: 919.754.3708
GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120  568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242