I think the question is: do we want to add the orphan user to the packager group or add a special casing in pagure's code for that user? (I'd be more inclined for the former)

I think the former makes much more sense; it should have no negative effect as long as nobody can actually access that account.

And I would just sponsor the orphan user to get this taken care of, but it turns out that it also isn't in the 'cla_done' group so I can't sponsor it.

The one downside to adding it to packager is that it will then have ssh access to pkgs, but of course if no one has access to it that doesn't matter I guess, but it's a bit less security in case someone ever does.

I wonder... could we teach pagure that "null"/"no owner" is called 'orphan' ? ie, allow a project to be not owned by anyone and this displays as 'orphan' ?

:new_moon_with_face:

We have another additional issue caused by requiring packager:

Users that are not in packager cannot fork projects at all anymore.
If they try, they get: " You must sign the FPCA (Fedora Project Contributor Agreement) to use pagure"

We have another additional issue caused by requiring packager:
Users that are not in packager cannot fork projects at all anymore.
If they try, they get: " You must sign the FPCA (Fedora Project Contributor Agreement) to use pagure"

This seems like a different issue. Did they log into pagure before signing the FPCA? Did they log out and back in afterward to sync the FPCA info?

Asking them to check that now. Indeed it may have been a caching issue.

ok, I have gone ahead and added orphan to packager, so now folks should be able to give packages to it.

:crown: