#2549 Proposal: maintaining provenpackager status
Closed: Accepted 4 months ago by bcotton. Opened 5 months ago by bcotton.

After some discussion on devel, I am proposing a policy for maintaining provenpackager status.

The intent of this proposal is to be minimially strict to start. provenpackager status should arguably have a higher bar than this proposal sets forth, but it is a starting point we can iterate on and is better than what we're doing now.


In general I am in favor, but:

  • two weeks could be a bit short... what if someone was off on a vacation or sick then?

  • I guess since there's nothing mentioned in this policy that people removed from the group would need to re-apply in the normal way to be re-added?

They have not submitted a koji build in the last six months, so I think 2 weeks is fine.

+1

In general I am in favor, but:

  • two weeks could be a bit short... what if someone was off on a vacation or sick then?

They've had six months to perform a build. I think two weeks is fine.

  • I guess since there's nothing mentioned in this policy that people removed from the group would need to re-apply in the normal way to be re-added?

Yes, that would be my expectation as well.

ok, +1, but I think we should be understanding if people get caught by this where they were not expecting it. :)

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

5 months ago

Metadata Update from @ngompa:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

5 months ago

Reopening to get some guidance on specific implementation questions:

  1. Does the list of removals require FESCo approval? I believe the answer is "no" as FESCo has approved the policy and it is straightforward enough that there's not really anything for FESCo to decide. But if the consensus is that it requires FESCo approval, I am happy to file a ticket after the two-week response period has passed.
  2. What is the best mechanism to process this change? Should I file a FESCo ticket and let one of the FESCo members who is an admin on the group remove the appropriate people? Should I file it as an infrastructure ticket instead?

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

4 months ago
  1. I agree that "no" is the correct answer.
  2. Infrastructure ticket IMHO works better, most of the FESCo members lack the powers to do this (except @kevin, who is also following infrastructure tickets).

+1.1
Perhaps dormant provenpackagers could be moved into a quarantine group rather than lose their provenpackager status entirely. This would also make it easier to reinstate their status.

Occasionally I go on 3 month treks only to come back to some level of domestic neglect that needs urgent sorting out, I feel 2 weeks notice is quite short but is quite okay if there is an uncomplicated way to restore the status quo.

Occasionally I go on 3 month treks

You need to do no builds for 6 months and then not reply to the message for two weeks. So I think it's fine. In the random case when somebody is legitimately away for whatever reason, they can write a short mail and we'll add them back. I don't expect this too happen too often.

There seems to be a general consensus on my implementation questions, so I'm going to re-close this issue. Thanks, everyone!

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

4 months ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata