I kind of agree with your levels of trust there, but one thing I notice
(that Mike/mmcgrath has pointed out before) is that we get a lot of
people who show interest, get access to some subset of systems
(like -noc, or -test), and then never use it, and just fade out. Or
they send out their introduction email, but never join on IRC
and never actually get involved.
I realize -test is kind of more public than the rest, but I think we
should occasionally go through -test and -noc and see who all
has faded out/not used their access. I'd rather people come back
in a month asking to be re-sponsored into a group than have access
to things just hanging there, and never be used. The more access,
the more entryways into the servers, and the more security risk.
One other thing, I wouldn't put -hosted in the same group as
-noc and -test. -hosted has access to all of fedorahosted.org
which hosts quite a lot of projects and gets quite a lot of hits.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on moving forward. I really like
how open we are to people helping out, and joining the team, I just
wish there was a way to filter those who are interested/will stick around
against those who will fade away in two weeks.
- Ricky Elrod
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:36 PM, David Nalley <david(a)gnsa.us> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> Ok I am not doing a good job of greeting new people and helping to get
> them oriented. For the many people on this list I apologize.
> My time for getting people into the group has been overloaded and it
> keeps getting put back. So it is time for a new approach... currently
> we have a page for getting started, what to expect, and how to get
> sponsored... but we have not been good about greeting people and
> finding places where their skills match.
> We also need to show the separation between groups, sysadmin,
> sysadmin-noc, sysadmin-test, sysadmin-main etc. Some groups are going
> to take a while for someone to get into (sysadmin-releng and
> sysadmin-main) mainly because it is a matter of trust and work. Other
> groups are 'easier' to get into but still require trust. Anyway, I
> would like to get ideas on how e can do this better and move forward.
Well it strikes me that we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem in
many ways. We want people to prove themselves, and gain trust in both
their intentions and competency before we grant access, and yet at the
same time, the core way of getting many things done (puppet) is locked
away and requires access.
So, perhaps that means there needs to be a more formal hierarchy, that
provides a way to show competency and garner trust. Perhaps newcomers
should be required to show up in IRC and watch the flow, and also
orient themselves to the ticket queue. Following there selection of a
FIG, they attract the attention of a sponsor and get the read-only
privileges (similiar to a subset of sysadmin-noc) for that FIG, and
start working on tickets. That level of access is given more freely.
This culminates in the sponsor seeing their work is good and granting
them membership to the FIGs. This effectively creates a senior
sysadmin /junior sysadmin relationship (or perhaps making the sponsors
effective leads that essentially oversee the work of the people being
sponsored until they are sponsored) This is what I have actually seen
happening in many cases, but it's not formalized. This does mean that
sponsors would likely be doing less real work, and more supervising,
which might not appeal to them.
We also probably need to formalize the strata of things, my choice of
colors for this bikeshed would be:
The top level groups are:
sysadmin-main, sysadmin-dba, sysadmin-releng
The intermediate level:
sysadmin-web, sysadmin-cvs, sysadmin-devel, sysadmin-tools, sysadmin-build
The lowest level:
sysadmin-hosted, sysadmin-test, sysadmin-noc
The levels I've selected are somewhat arbitrary, but it's my
perception, not of the level of work, but rather the level of trust
that must be earned before being granted permission to start actively
For such a system to be effective, though, we also need to be growing
the sponsors list. I queried zodbot on the sponsors for everything but
the top level. You'll notice there are really only 12 people, most who
are sponsors of multiple FIGs - which means that without growing
sponsors, we'll likely be in the same place.
18:30 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-noc
18:30 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-noc: @mmcgrath nb smooge @susmit
18:30 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-hosted
18:30 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-hosted: @mmcgrath ricky
18:30 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-test
18:30 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-test: jkeating lmacken mdomsch
@mmcgrath nb ricky @skvidal smooge toshio
18:31 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-web
18:31 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-web: jstanley lmacken mdomsch
@mmcgrath nb skvidal @smooge toshio
18:31 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-tools
18:31 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-tools: @ausil jstanley @mmcgrath nb
18:31 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-build
18:31 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-build: @ausil
18:31 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-devel
18:32 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-devel: lmacken @mmcgrath ricky toshio
18:32 <ke4qqq> .sponsors sysadmin-cvs
18:32 <zodbot> Sponsors for sysadmin-cvs: @ausil @mmcgrath notting
infrastructure mailing list