Is it possible to request new organizations on Forgejo at this time?
It would be nice to have a new org: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/workstation/
with pretty name "Fedora Workstation" and the following members: aday, catanzaro, chrismurphy, mclasen, ngompa, nmontero, petersen, salimma, tpopela
This is not urgent. But since I'm expected to pick a date, how about 2025/09/12.
There's still discussion about organizing things and naming:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/project-hosting-in-the-new-forge/162244/21
Once that sorted, I'm sure this can be setup...
OK, agree we'd better wait until that discussion has concluded.
Metadata Update from @smoliicek: - Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble
Metadata Update from @kevin: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on Assignee (was: Needs Review)
Metadata Update from @humaton: - Issue tagged with: forgejo_migration
I'm going to close this since there is now a required format for these requests, and we have not yet met the prerequisites (notably we don't have FAS groups yet). Will create follow-up issues.
We are tracking this in: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/490
Metadata Update from @catanzaro: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed with Explanation - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
@catanzaro feel free to request the groups here -- we (me) can create them as part of the process.
if you don't already have groups, this is the structure we are using: (consider this a proposal for you to approve, then i will implement it)
Organization Name: workstation Organization Fullname: Fedora Workstation <- this can be changed anytime by an org owner
workstation
Fedora Workstation
Team: * Owners mapped to a new FAS group forge-workstation-owners * FAS Sponsors (catanzaro + anyone else) -- all this allows you to do is add and remove members to the FAS group. * FAS Members (aday, catanzaro, chrismurphy, mclasen, ngompa, nmontero, petersen, salimma, tpopela)
Owners
forge-workstation-owners
You could add other teams (like a forge-workstation-members or something else) if you want more fine-grained control over acls, but if you are happy with all the members of the WG having owner permissions on the org, this is probably the easiest way to go.
Metadata Update from @ryanlerch: - Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)
Yes, it would be nice for all members of the WG to have owner permissions, and also to be able to add/remove group members.
CC @tpopela because he had agreed to investigate how to handle this migration.
Yes, it would be nice for all members of the WG to have owner permissions, and also to be able to add/remove group members. CC @tpopela because he had agreed to investigate how to handle this migration.
too easy -- the approach above is probably the way to go, we just need to add everyone to the sponsors list. (sponsors in a FAS group can only be changed by admins / via a ticket), but anyone in that list can add someone to the group, which gives them owner status in the org.
Log in to comment on this ticket.