On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 18:45 -0500, pmkellly(a)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...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net