Introduction emails (was Re: BugZappers Meeting Recap for 2009-03-03)

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:52:43PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:42 -0500, TK009 wrote:
>>
>>> * (SOP) Standard Operating Procedures - General discussion began on  
>>> creation of SOP's for the BugZappers, and that they should be created  
>>> concurrently with the wiki update. Then focused on SOP for joining/new 
>>> members of the BugZappers. Specifically the "introduction e-mail". No  
>>> decission was reached during the meeting regarding procedure.
>>
>> This is an area which came in for some contention during the meeting.
>> Let's have some follow up :)
>>
>> To recap for people who weren't at the meeting:
>>
>> Myself and John would like to make it a standard requirement for new
>> triagers to post a short mail to the mailing list just to introduce
>> themselves. The intent of this is multiple. First, it acts as a basic
>> bot check - this is important, as joining fedorabugs group gives you
>> wide Bugzilla powers, so we don't want bots to get it.
>>
>> Second, it's a good way to make newcomers feel involved right away, and
>> make sure the rest of the group knows about them. We actually had about
>> ten new members in the fedorabugs group last week, but most current
>> triagers wouldn't know that because there's currently nothing that has
>> them introduce themselves to the rest of the group.
>
> Third, it makes our job easier because then we know who to approve for  
> 'fedorabugs' vs. every single notification we get.  It is my  
> understanding that packagers get 'fedorabugs' too, but I'm not sure how  
> it is granted or requested.

I asked the admins:

[05 Mar 10:53] <stickster> Question for anyone... 'fedorabugs' group
membership is, I believe, implied by 'packager' group membership --
how does that work exactly?
[05 Mar 10:53] <stickster> By which I mean, does FAS have an
understanding of group membership dependencies?
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> stickster: implied?
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> packager might require fedorabugs.
[05 Mar 10:55] <mmcgrath> it'd just mean someone has to be in
fedorabugs before they can be in packager.
[05 Mar 10:55] <nirik> I thought packager automagically added
fedorabugs now.
[05 Mar 10:55] <nirik> but I don't know how it does that.
[05 Mar 10:56] <stickster> nirik: Yeah, that's what I was looking for
but didn't say it very well. I'm trying to find out if, when someone
is added to 'packager', they are automatically added to 'fedorabugs'.
[05 Mar 10:56] <nirik> yes, I think that is the case. ;)
[05 Mar 10:57] <mmcgrath> if it does that, not even I know how that
mechanism works :)

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090305/44e5d630/attachment.sig>