Wiki Team Launchpad permissions (was Re: Proposal: Create product for each derivative's documentation)

[Matthew East]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Emma Jane <emmajane at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> 2.  The role and use of the open team needs some discussion. I've used
>> "contributors" as the name for the draft, as it is probably the least
>> objectionable of the names put forward so far. But in reality, if
>> there is no need to contribute in order to join the team, then it is
>> more of a "fan club" type team. Naming the team "contributors" would
>> falsely give the impression that all members of the team have
>> contributed.
>
> I have updated the Wiki page to include the tasks that are expected from the
> Ubuntu Documentation Contributors.

Thanks - those look sensible.

> The two "admin" teams require further clarification as they are currently using
> "read and understood" which is not a measurable goal. In other words, it is
> possible to test whether or not someone has understood what they have read.

Yes, I see that it's not a particular good frame of reference.
Provided that someone satisfies the other requirements, I think that
it is satisfactory simply to ask people to confirm that they have read
the pages, and to take their word for it. See for example
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl.

> Sample clarifications are below.
>
>
> == Ubuntu Documentation Commit Team
> Note on name change: I'm not sure about you, but committer doesn't appear to
> be an English word in my dictionary? :)

I don't have a dictionary on me, but the internet seems to recognise
it, my word processor doesn't object to the word, and lots of other
projects seem to use it ok:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/committer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committer
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/index.html
http://people.apache.org/committers.html

> Applicants must have:
>  * Signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct
>  * Contributed at least one significant patch to the system documentation
> which enhances the existing system documentation, applies the StyleGuide, and
> demonstrates the candidate's ability to work with DocBook, Bazaar and
> Launchpad.

I saw your modification to this on the wiki - I'm not really
comfortable with implying that one patch is enough to join this team.
Obviously how many patches are required will vary depending on the
individual, we'll need flexibility here. Perhaps we could change "at
least one" to "a number", so:

"Contributed a number of patches to the system documentation which,
taken as a whole, demonstrate to the reviewer that the applicant
applies the [[DocumentationTeam/StyleGuide|documentation team style
guide]], and is comfortable working with DocBook, Bazaar and
Launchpad."

> == Wiki Administrators:
> Note on name change: Editor is misleading. This is the administrative team,
> anyone with an LP account can edit the Wiki.

Well, I see your point of course, but actually the Moin wiki currently
makes a distinction between users, editors and admins. Administrators
can access certain aspects of wiki configuration and set ACLs
(https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AdminGroup) whereas editors can
delete and rename pages
(https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EditorGroup). That's why I used the
word editor, although I can see that it's not 100% clear. We may want
to look into amending those descriptions at the level of the wiki
configuration.

> The Wiki page also needs to include who is performing these evaluations and by
> what manner a person is elevated to an "administrator" role. This needs to
> include:
>  * application review process (time frame from when the application is made,
> to when a decision should be handed back)
>  * people who are qualified to grant access, and under what conditions they
> may grant/revoke access
>  * how often someone may apply to be a member (e.g. you don't want someone
> re-applying to be a member the day after they are rejected)
>  * the appeal process for members who are rejected.

Although I agree that the page should deal with who evaluates
applications and what the procedure is, the above is overly formal. I
don't think we can or should commit to a time frame, nor an appeal
process. I'd suggest:

 * the application is made by posting to the mailing list
 * the team will discuss and reach a view on the application by consensus
 * if any issue is raised with the application which leads it to be
refused, the applicant can reapply when they feel that those issues
have been addressed

-- 
Matthew East
http://www.mdke.org
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF