[gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

Hi,

as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.

This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.

Best regards,
Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: glep-bugz-contrib.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1875 bytes --]

GLEP: 52
Title: Bugzilla access for contributors
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2006/08/16 19:25:14 $
Author: Stefen Schweizer <genstef@gentoo.org>,
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 01-Sep-2006
Post-History: 01-Sep-2006


Abstract
========

To improve the development flux in Gentoo, we should allow more people to
manage bugs in our large bugzilla database.


Current situation
================

Currently there are specific deals with arch testers and devrel/infra to allow
arch testers to edit bugs. This GLEP is written to standardize the process and
make it available for all aspects of Gentoo where work is being done by people
who are no full developers.

Requirements
============

Bugzilla permissions
------------

It is needed that contributors who work on bugs can edit them on their own and
do not have to rely on their mentoring or supervising developers to reassign
or modify bugs.

An example for this has been obvious since the overlays project was established.
Bugs for overlays should be filed on bugs.gentoo.org and will most likely get
assigned to the developer/herd. This does allow a contributor to fix the bug
but only to mark it as fixed in bugzilla when he is also an arch tester.

Security
-----------------

To ensure that not everyone who asks for it can get access to edit bugs it is
required to complete the ebuild quiz prior to requesting access

Management
---------------

This cannot be managed by recruiters, because they lack the resources to do it.
Instead a developer who mentors more people gets access to edit bugzilla
permissions and can add people there where he has checked the ebuild quiz. The
developer will also take care of removing them again if needed. This reflects
current arch tester practice.

Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Alec Warner]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
> bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
> devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
> 
> This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan

Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild
quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again?

I'll state the same thing I stated on that list.

A.  This already happens.  I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming
a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage
bugs.  Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness
for recruiters (or anyone else).

B.  Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required?  This
is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps
Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups?  Why is
there all this red tape?

Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add
user to group -> done.  As long as they can't access my bugs; I really
shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care.

C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
aliases.  Why does this require one?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Elfyn McBratney]

Ciao,

On 03/09/06, Stefan Schweizer <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
> bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
> devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
>
> This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.

I don't see why this is necessary; like Alec, I got Bugzilla access
before I became a developer, as did others in my group.  I got mine
4-5 months before becoming a dev, too, and all that was needed was for
my mentor at the time to request that I be granted gentoo-dev
privileges.

I don't see why this needs a GLEP.  If non-developers need write
access, then there should already be a relationship in place between
them and at least one other developer, thus that developer can request
write access for them.  It's worked like that for at least two
years...

Red tape--,
Elfyn
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Elfyn McBratney]

On 04/09/06, FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@proxy.anadoludigital.com
<FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@proxy.anadoludigital.com> wrote:
> General SMTP/ESMTP error.
> [... crap received after posting to -dev ...]

Whoever has bodged their fetchmail configuration, please fix it ASAP!
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Josh Saddler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
[. . .]

Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
*become* a "contributor" to get these rights?

This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE+5zCrsJQqN81j74RAlzvAKCVRStCmei5+FX7/7OGASeRznpGOACfSrvE
xXLafFQXqatRkoAmMu2b+yc=
=LL0u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Alec Warner wrote:
> C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
> project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
> aliases.  Why does this require one?

devrel, plasmaroo, asked me to send this here. And hparker wanted me to send
it in, too. Cannot really answer that myself, but obviously there is no
working solution without a GLEP. I have two users on queue with their
ebuild quiz ready. Show me a way to get access for them if you think that
this is unneeded!

Regards,
Stefan 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> thus that developer can request
> write access for them.  It's worked like that for at least two
> years...

I did that and devrel asked me to write a GLEP. If you can show me another
way to do it, I would like to hear about it! I have two contributors with
ebuild quiz here.

Regards,
Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Josh Saddler wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> [. . .]
> 
> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
> *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
> 
> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.

As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No
special status involved.

- Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]

On Monday 04 September 2006 02:45, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Josh Saddler wrote:
> > Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > [. . .]
> >
> > Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
> > *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
> >
> > This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
>
> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No
> special status involved.

huh ?  if contributors dont require special status, why are you proposing a 
GLEP ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Josh Saddler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Josh Saddler wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> [. . .]
>>
>> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does one
>> *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
>>
>> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
> 
> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No
> special status involved.
> 
> - Stefan

Contributing what? Contributing how much? Contributing how long? How is quality
measured? Is there a minimum level somewhere? X amount of ebuilds? X amount of
patches for docs/packages, or donating hardware, or adminning a webnode somewhere?

Things to think about. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE+9BCrsJQqN81j74RAk30AKCj4vWD5SK04N2Cje/lVY/d97tfcgCffKe4
s0OrRkREdAXg0ZKbJww6E8M=
=BeJ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> Josh Saddler wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>>> [. . .]
>>>
>>> Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does
>>> one *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
>>>
>>> This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
>> 
>> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No
>> special status involved.
>> 
>> - Stefan
> 
> Contributing what? Contributing how much? Contributing how long? How is
> quality measured? Is there a minimum level somewhere? X amount of ebuilds?
> X amount of patches for docs/packages, or donating hardware, or adminning
> a webnode somewhere?

It does not matter. The real requirement is not to be defined as
a "contributor" but to take the ebuild quiz:

"To ensure that not everyone who asks for it can get access to edit bugs it
is required to complete the ebuild quiz prior to requesting access"

-Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 503 bytes --]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>> thus that developer can request
>> write access for them.  It's worked like that for at least two
>> years...
> 
> I did that and devrel asked me to write a GLEP. If you can show me another
> way to do it, I would like to hear about it! I have two contributors with
> ebuild quiz here.

Do note that a project can require a GLEP to be written, but can approve
it at the project level without requiring a council vote.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Monday 04 September 2006 02:45, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> Josh Saddler wrote:
>> > Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> > [. . .]
>> >
>> > Define "contributors" -- is this a special status? If it is, how does
>> > one *become* a "contributor" to get these rights?
>> >
>> > This is potentially a big problem, the way I see it.
>>
>> As the word might tell a contributor is someone who is contributing. No
>> special status involved.
> 
> huh ?  if contributors dont require special status, why are you proposing
> a GLEP ?
> -mike

they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing
problems ..

The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status,
only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed.

-stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

On Monday 04 September 2006 04:32, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing
> problems ..

of course they are defined by their status ... you cant go handing out 
bugzilla access to joe blow because he "contributed something"

> The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status,
> only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed.

accept that you failed to qualify who these "some people" are
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Josh Saddler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing
> problems ..
> 
> The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status,
> only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed.
> 
> -stefan

Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe an
arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed is" and
who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system that works
like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just passing the ebuild
quiz -- or is something more needed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE++/NrsJQqN81j74RAvGSAJ9wXcfX21fsYVzUMQA5hAXglndhzACguKQ7
/3ISVFKVzH9Qjbc5LRr4aVM=
=RBgK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe
> an arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed
> is" and who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system
> that works like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just
> passing the ebuild quiz -- or is something more needed?

If it needs to be extended a new GLEP like this one can be written or this
one extended. This is only about bugzilla access, nothing more. So no, it
is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases
as possible.

-Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Simon Stelling]

Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> it
> is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases
> as possible.

Which makes it pretty pointless. Really, this GLEP says almost nothing,
it's simply too vague to express any intend.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Alec Warner]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>>> they are not defined by their status. I wonder why this word is causing
>>> problems ..
>>>
>>> The status is maybe being an arch tester. This GLEP is not about status,
>>> only about giving some people bugzilla access when needed.
>>>
>>> -stefan
> 
> Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe an
> arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed is" and
> who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system that works
> like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just passing the ebuild
> quiz -- or is something more needed?

These "some people" are people that I deem fit to help on bugzilla for a
project for which I am lead (or have the leads approval).  "When needed"
is when I think I need people for my project.  Concrete enough for you?

Heck my project has 3 non-developer "contributors" right now[1].
Do they have bugs access yet?  I don't think so; but I don't think they
will need it either.  Then again, afaik all 3 are either AT's or are
becoming devs soon ;)

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Ãstergaard]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
> > bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
> > devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
> > 
> > This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Stefan
> 
> Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild
> quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again?
> 
> I'll state the same thing I stated on that list.
> 
> A.  This already happens.  I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming
> a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage
> bugs.  Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness
> for recruiters (or anyone else).
If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is
something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing
out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for
recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined
procedures etc. for that.
> 
> B.  Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required?  This
> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps
> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups?  Why is
> there all this red tape?
Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass
quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can
reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs.
> 
> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add
> user to group -> done.  As long as they can't access my bugs; I really
> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care.
Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester
projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it.

Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal
is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise
contributors deal with packages outside the tree.

And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef
made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but
guess what?  Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc.
are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now?
This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no
matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted.
> 
> C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
> project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
> aliases.  Why does this require one?
Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a
very direct way as opposed to random projects.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Ãstergaard]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:35:54AM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
> > someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
> > project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
> > mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
> > aliases.  Why does this require one?
> 
> devrel, plasmaroo, asked me to send this here. And hparker wanted me to send
> it in, too. Cannot really answer that myself, but obviously there is no
> working solution without a GLEP. I have two users on queue with their
> ebuild quiz ready. Show me a way to get access for them if you think that
> this is unneeded!
> 
It's very much needed imo. See other reply where I explain exactly why
it's needed.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Ãstergaard]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:54:02PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Josh Saddler wrote:
> > Because as much as possible, we need to see something concrete, not "maybe
> > an arch tester." We need to have a better definition of what "when needed
> > is" and who these "some people" are -- think about it. Do we want a system
> > that works like devship, but only halfway -- like you suggested, just
> > passing the ebuild quiz -- or is something more needed?
> 
> If it needs to be extended a new GLEP like this one can be written or this
> one extended. This is only about bugzilla access, nothing more. So no, it
> is meant to be as non-concrete as possible to allow usage in as many cases
> as possible.
> 
This practically means opening up bugzie to world + dog. Maybe not right
now but being so non-concrete as you call it means we can never tell
anybody no. All they have to do is calling themselves a contributor.
Personally I think this is only going to lead to chaos and I'm not at
all frilled by the idea.

If this is to go forward it needs to be well-defined - handwaving simply
isn't cutting it imo.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:59:44 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <genstef@gentoo.org> wrote:

> An example for this has been obvious since the overlays project was
> established. Bugs for overlays should be filed on bugs.gentoo.org and
> will most likely get assigned to the developer/herd. This does allow
> a contributor to fix the bug but only to mark it as fixed in bugzilla
> when he is also an arch tester.

Is it not enough just to re-assign such bugs to the contributor?  The
reason devs can resolve bugs is that they have write access to the tree
and thus can incorporate a fix.  If something is in an overlay,
presumably the contributor has write access to that overlay, and should
be the assignee of the bug.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Alec Warner]

Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:38:19PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
>> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as requested by multiple devrel members I have written a GLEP to standardize
>>> bugzilla access for contributors. It has already been discussed on the
>>> devrel mailing list before but I am looking for a wider opinion now.
>>>
>>> This is also a submission for the new council when it meets.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Stefan
>> Errr. on -devrel you noted you would just make people take the ebuild
>> quiz and now devrel wants a GLEP again?
>>
>> I'll state the same thing I stated on that list.
>>
>> A.  This already happens.  I had bugs access for MONTHS before becoming
>> a dev; I got assigned to the portage buggroup and I could edit portage
>> bugs.  Anyone already on the portage team could add me, so no nastiness
>> for recruiters (or anyone else).
> If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is
> something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing
> out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for
> recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined
> procedures etc. for that.

Then you better get to patching bugs, since I can hand out gentoo-dev
and portage-dev privs on bugs without any problem (I tried it on
ferringb to check even; and i took them away right after).

>> B.  Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required?  This
>> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps
>> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups?  Why is
>> there all this red tape?
> Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass
> quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can
> reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs.

And in this case I'm saying a subset.  I'll use Java as an example.
Caster is like an awesome Java dude.  Lets say I want to give him access
to bugs assigned to java@gentoo.org.  Either I (as a member of that
herd/project) already have bugs perms to java bugs, or the group doesn't
exist and I need to ask JForman to make a java-bugs group and make it so
they can do stuff to bugs assigned to java@.  If I'm already in the
group I can just delegate the java perms to Caster and be done.

Aside from the java bugs, no one else is affected.  No other permissions
on bugs are granted.  The user can only mess with java bugs.

>> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add
>> user to group -> done.  As long as they can't access my bugs; I really
>> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care.
> Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester
> projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it.
> 
> Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal
> is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise
> contributors deal with packages outside the tree.
> 
> And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef
> made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but
> guess what?  Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc.
> are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now?
> This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no
> matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted.

I liked my definition in my earlier mail ;)  Generally contributing
requires you know someone rather well, such that they proxy your changes
into the tree.

>> C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
>> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
>> project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
>> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
>> aliases.  Why does this require one?
> Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a
> very direct way as opposed to random projects.

I tried to make it clear above that it doesn't.  I hope I succeeded.

> 
> Regards,
> Bryan Østergaard

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 02:59:43PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
> > If people are randomly given bugzie privs (or any other privs) this is
> > something we need to fix. And just to make this clear to all - handing
> > out privs is only half the equation and it's already hard enough for
> > recruiters to keep track of devs even though we have well defined
> > procedures etc. for that.
> 
> Then you better get to patching bugs, since I can hand out gentoo-dev
> and portage-dev privs on bugs without any problem (I tried it on
> ferringb to check even; and i took them away right after).
> 
This is being fixed now. Gentoo-dev gives access to (some) restricted
bugs but doesn't give editbugs privs and portage-dev was somebody
hitting a wrong checkbox. Likely a long time ago but a simple mistake
never the less and not something that should be considered normal.

> >> B.  Double bonus is that I don't even see why a GLEP is required?  This
> >> is a small subset of users using one resource (bugzilla) so perhaps
> >> Infra and devrel and you can work out the requisite groups?  Why is
> >> there all this red tape?
> > Because it's going to affect all devs if people don't need to pass
> > quizzes (or we lower the threshhold substantially) before they can
> > reassign, close, reopen etc. the maintainers bugs.
> 
> And in this case I'm saying a subset.  I'll use Java as an example.
> Caster is like an awesome Java dude.  Lets say I want to give him access
> to bugs assigned to java@gentoo.org.  Either I (as a member of that
> herd/project) already have bugs perms to java bugs, or the group doesn't
> exist and I need to ask JForman to make a java-bugs group and make it so
> they can do stuff to bugs assigned to java@.  If I'm already in the
> group I can just delegate the java perms to Caster and be done.
> 
> Aside from the java bugs, no one else is affected.  No other permissions
> on bugs are granted.  The user can only mess with java bugs.
> 
This is going to be a maintainence nightmare for several reasons.
1. Very few people can create new bugzilla groups and they'd have to
take time out to do that instead of (what I'd consider) more important
bugzilla maintainence.
2. You can't delete groups easily (probably can't delete groups at all)
as lots of bugzilla data might be related to these groups. End result
would be an enormous amounts of groups in a relatively short time if we
were to micromanage privs that way.
3. Who's going to clean up all these privs when people turn inactive?
Recruiters are already overloaded as is and certainly don't need the
extra management burden from this. I'd much rather spend time recruiting
new devs and making sure we do a good job at that than trying to keep
bugzilla privs somewhat clean.

> >> Create a group; come up with a subset of bugs that they can access, add
> >> user to group -> done.  As long as they can't access my bugs; I really
> >> shouldn't (and trust me I don't) care.
> > Who's going to admin that? We already have the Arch Tester / Herd Tester
> > projects that defines a proper way of achieving the goal as I see it.
> > 
> > Only problem with Herd Testers / Arch Testers compared to genstefs goal
> > is that HTs/ATs deal with packages in the tree while sunrise
> > contributors deal with packages outside the tree.
> > 
> > And personally I'd very much like to draw the line somewhere. Genstef
> > made the GLEP extremely vague regarding contributors (on purpose) but
> > guess what?  Everybody who files a new bug, submits a fixed ebuild etc.
> > are contributors. So should we just remove all the restrictions now?
> > This is definitely something we need to define before moving on, no
> > matter if the GLEP is eventually denied or accepted.
> 
> I liked my definition in my earlier mail ;)  Generally contributing
> requires you know someone rather well, such that they proxy your changes
> into the tree.
That's not adequate imo. Lots of people seem genuinely interested in
helping only to disappear a few days/weeks later. Part of what the
ebuild quiz does is that it tries to make sure people are going to stick
around for a while. It doesn't always succeed and neither does
recruiters but I still think it's important that he have some defined
bar (level?) that you need to pass.
> 
> >> C.  No real standard on any other fora.  I don't need a GLEP to add
> >> someone to my project overlay, or grant them voice or ops in my
> >> project's IRC channel.  I don't need a GLEP to get them subscribed to my
> >> mailing list and I don't need a GLEP to add them to (most) project
> >> aliases.  Why does this require one?
> > Because this is about the entire Gentoo project and affects us all in a
> > very direct way as opposed to random projects.
> 
> I tried to make it clear above that it doesn't.  I hope I succeeded.
I still very much believe this affects all of gentoo, especially seen in
light of the problems micromanaging bugzie privs would imply.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

Joshua Jackson wrote:
> This is one of those times where I think we all need to take a step
> back and really look at what we are doing. Gleps were designed for a
> purpose, and this is not one of them. This is an issue of common
> sense. 

+1 - this just doesn't make sense.

And damn, bugzilla folks don't need ebuild quiz, they need to read
bugzilla docs and learn how to effectively search 95% of time (ditto for
users filing duplicate/invalid bugs over and over again). If they are
not sure, they just assign the bug or leave it to someone else to handle
it. And even if they screw up, the user who filed the bug can reopen it
anytime.

And no, we are *not* opening bugzilla to "the whole world plus their
dogs" - we *always* have an option to deny people those privs - since
those are privs, not rights. They are not entitled to them, granting
them those privs is solely up to the discretion of Gentoo devs
responsible for this.

Thanks.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:17:54AM -0700, Joshua Jackson wrote:
> This is one of those times where I think we all need to take a step
> back and really look at what we are doing. Gleps were designed for a
> purpose, and this is not one of them. This is an issue of common
> sense. We all know or at least I hope so that most users should not be
> given access to modify bugs. ArchTesters should as they've taken the
> ebuild quiz and its one of the few things they get as an added benefit
> for having committed time and effort to earn the trust of the
> Developer community. As well it might be considered common sense that
> someone who only works on java as a contributor but helps with patches
> and advice commonly should be able to do things with java only
> bugs...as it allows them to further help out as the productive member
> of the community they are.
Not possible for reasons I've described in other replies to the thread.
Bugzie privs includes all bugs, not just a subset.

> As such I really feel that we've gone overboard on what should be
> considered an enhancement proposal. I would think that for the council
> as well as the developers would bring common sense to this as well.
> How exactly does a glep such as this enhance Gentoo as a whole? That
> should be something we all ask ourselves before we tell someone to
> draft a glep or consider writing one.
> 
> Genstef, I'm not poking at you directly, please don't feel assaulted.
One thing about this is that genstef won't take a no for an answer.
Seeing that we couldn't come to an agreement on this (recruiters/devrel
on one side / genstef on the other) and that I still believe this
affects all devs I thought it was best for genstef to glep it.

That way we could all have our say and it could be publically decided
whether it's a good idea or not. You could argue that a normal
gentoo-dev discussion could easily serve the same purpose but I fear
that genstefs initial mail would have been even more vague than his
proprosed glep. Adding a bit of structure to it seemed like a good
thing and I'd argue that the small bit of structure have helped keep
the discussion on track.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Bryan Østergaard]

On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:45:39PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
> > This is one of those times where I think we all need to take a step
> > back and really look at what we are doing. Gleps were designed for a
> > purpose, and this is not one of them. This is an issue of common
> > sense. 
> 
> +1 - this just doesn't make sense.
> 
> And damn, bugzilla folks don't need ebuild quiz, they need to read
> bugzilla docs and learn how to effectively search 95% of time (ditto for
> users filing duplicate/invalid bugs over and over again). If they are
> not sure, they just assign the bug or leave it to someone else to handle
> it. And even if they screw up, the user who filed the bug can reopen it
> anytime.
> 
> And no, we are *not* opening bugzilla to "the whole world plus their
> dogs" - we *always* have an option to deny people those privs - since
> those are privs, not rights. They are not entitled to them, granting
> them those privs is solely up to the discretion of Gentoo devs
> responsible for this.
> 
Well, if people don't want to discuss issues such as this I'm quite
happy to just deny them in the future.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] Bugzilla access for contributors

[Stefan Schweizer]

Bryan Østergaard wrote:
[..] Adding a bit of structure to it seemed like a good
> thing and I'd argue that the small bit of structure have helped keep
> the discussion on track.

I talked with kloeri in private about this and a GLEP that allows giving out
bugzilla access permissions by non-recruiters is not wanted. Because of
this we concluded to apply the AT/HT procedure on overlays:

"Projects operating on overlays can also recruit herd testers and call them
trusted committer. This explicitly includes sunrise which operates on a
random mumbo-jumbo of ebuilds."


thanks kloeri and request for discussion :)

best regards,
Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list