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

[Emma Jane]

On Monday 20 April 2009 11:01:06 am Matthew East wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Emma Jane <emmajane at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > 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:

I don't like the ambiguity of "a number." Note that I moved the point about a 
number of small patches to the list of requirements for Contributors. What 
would make sense is to have a point under the "admin" area that says you need 
to have been a Contributing Member of the documentation team for a period of 
___ time, and have accomplished all points under the list of Contributor 
activities.


> > == 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.

It is very important people who read this page and know they are immediately 
able to Edit without special permission. If this requires a top-tier change in 
language, I would support that change.


> > 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:

If the goal is to get qualified applicants permission granted to perform tasks, 
then it's actually a good thing to have a specific check list showing exactly 
what is expected and how the process works. Obfuscating the process, and 
leaving it unnecessarily flexible, leads to confusion which leads to people 
abandoning the project. Exceptions can always be granted; however, this 
document is the description that you would like the majority of people to 
follow.


>  * the application is made by posting to the mailing list
>  * the team will discuss and reach a view on the application by consensus

Who is "the team"? Consensus means *all* of the team agree. What if someone is 
on vacation? What if only one person disagrees? This point needs further 
clarification and probably would be more appropriate as a "majority vote" as 
opposed to a "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

No feelings, please. :) Change to, "the applicant may reapply after 
addressing, and providing a solution to, the issues raised by the selection 
team."


regards,
emma