You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@whimsical.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2018/05/03 14:59:45 UTC
Forms on file only shown for members?
The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
currently members.
Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 May 2018 at 15:07, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2018 at 12:48, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
>>>>> currently members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
>>>> pit-authorization-template
>>>>
>>>> [/documents]
>>>> @member = rw
>>>> @legal = rw
>>>> @pmc-chairs = rw
>>>> @staff = rw
>>>> @svnadmins = rw
>>>> whimsysvn = r
>>>> * =
>>>>
>>>> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
>>>> provide them with a link that they can't follow.
>>>
>>> The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether
>>> or not an ICLA has been filed.
>>>
>>> Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will
>>> also hide the filename, which may provide private info)?
>>> If so, should we only show the ICLA status?
>>
>> I'm confused. The set of people who have filed an ICLA is supposed to
>> be a proper superset of the set of committers.
>
> I think that's true now (it was not originally as some were lost), but
> as I wrote earlier, some PMCs expect to be able to check if someone
> has an ICLA using Whimsy.
> They see the information for some entries, and expect it to be present for all.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be1c40c17eadf815548bb52d6824386a120d9546cc7398142a0bb75a@%3Cprivate.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>
> Indeed I was a bit surprised not to find the info for a committer,
> even though I am a member.
>
> At the least, I think we need to show to members the links for all committers.
The ICLA links are now shown to members for all committers.
> But to avoid confusing non-members I think it would be better to
> always show the info (without the links if the user has no access).
Any objection if I include the text (no link) when non-members display
details for committers?
>> Put another way: if you find a committer using whimsy, you should
>> assume that an ICLA has been filed. But not finding a committer using
>> whimsy does NOT imply that an ICLA has not been filed.
>
> Yes, I assume that is true now, but it's not necessarily common knowledge.
>
>> - Sam Ruby
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 May 2018 at 15:07, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2018 at 12:48, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
>>>>> currently members.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
>>>> pit-authorization-template
>>>>
>>>> [/documents]
>>>> @member = rw
>>>> @legal = rw
>>>> @pmc-chairs = rw
>>>> @staff = rw
>>>> @svnadmins = rw
>>>> whimsysvn = r
>>>> * =
>>>>
>>>> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
>>>> provide them with a link that they can't follow.
>>>
>>> The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether
>>> or not an ICLA has been filed.
>>>
>>> Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will
>>> also hide the filename, which may provide private info)?
>>> If so, should we only show the ICLA status?
>>
>> I'm confused. The set of people who have filed an ICLA is supposed to
>> be a proper superset of the set of committers.
>
> I think that's true now (it was not originally as some were lost), but
> as I wrote earlier, some PMCs expect to be able to check if someone
> has an ICLA using Whimsy.
> They see the information for some entries, and expect it to be present for all.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be1c40c17eadf815548bb52d6824386a120d9546cc7398142a0bb75a@%3Cprivate.openoffice.apache.org%3E
>
> Indeed I was a bit surprised not to find the info for a committer,
> even though I am a member.
>
> At the least, I think we need to show to members the links for all committers.
>
> But to avoid confusing non-members I think it would be better to
> always show the info (without the links if the user has no access).
>
>> Put another way: if you find a committer using whimsy, you should
>> assume that an ICLA has been filed. But not finding a committer using
>> whimsy does NOT imply that an ICLA has not been filed.
>
> Yes, I assume that is true now, but it's not necessarily common knowledge.
FTR, there are two committer ids that don't appear in ICLAS.txt:
testrubys
testsebb
That is expected as they are special test aliases
There are 4 LDAP people ids that don't appear in ICLAS.txt
rlowe
rmonk
testrubys
testsebb
>> - Sam Ruby
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 May 2018 at 12:48, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
>>>> currently members.
>>>>
>>>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
>>> pit-authorization-template
>>>
>>> [/documents]
>>> @member = rw
>>> @legal = rw
>>> @pmc-chairs = rw
>>> @staff = rw
>>> @svnadmins = rw
>>> whimsysvn = r
>>> * =
>>>
>>> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
>>> provide them with a link that they can't follow.
>>
>> The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether
>> or not an ICLA has been filed.
>>
>> Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will
>> also hide the filename, which may provide private info)?
>> If so, should we only show the ICLA status?
>
> I'm confused. The set of people who have filed an ICLA is supposed to
> be a proper superset of the set of committers.
I think that's true now (it was not originally as some were lost), but
as I wrote earlier, some PMCs expect to be able to check if someone
has an ICLA using Whimsy.
They see the information for some entries, and expect it to be present for all.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be1c40c17eadf815548bb52d6824386a120d9546cc7398142a0bb75a@%3Cprivate.openoffice.apache.org%3E
Indeed I was a bit surprised not to find the info for a committer,
even though I am a member.
At the least, I think we need to show to members the links for all committers.
But to avoid confusing non-members I think it would be better to
always show the info (without the links if the user has no access).
> Put another way: if you find a committer using whimsy, you should
> assume that an ICLA has been filed. But not finding a committer using
> whimsy does NOT imply that an ICLA has not been filed.
Yes, I assume that is true now, but it's not necessarily common knowledge.
> - Sam Ruby
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
>>> currently members.
>>>
>>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
>> pit-authorization-template
>>
>> [/documents]
>> @member = rw
>> @legal = rw
>> @pmc-chairs = rw
>> @staff = rw
>> @svnadmins = rw
>> whimsysvn = r
>> * =
>>
>> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
>> provide them with a link that they can't follow.
>
> The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether
> or not an ICLA has been filed.
>
> Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will
> also hide the filename, which may provide private info)?
> If so, should we only show the ICLA status?
I'm confused. The set of people who have filed an ICLA is supposed to
be a proper superset of the set of committers.
Put another way: if you find a committer using whimsy, you should
assume that an ICLA has been filed. But not finding a committer using
whimsy does NOT imply that an ICLA has not been filed.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 May 2018 at 00:10, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
>> currently members.
>>
>> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
> pit-authorization-template
>
> [/documents]
> @member = rw
> @legal = rw
> @pmc-chairs = rw
> @staff = rw
> @svnadmins = rw
> whimsysvn = r
> * =
>
> Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
> provide them with a link that they can't follow.
The problem is that some people are using Whimsy to determine whether
or not an ICLA has been filed.
Would it be OK to provide the status, but disable the link (this will
also hide the filename, which may provide private info)?
If so, should we only show the ICLA status?
> - Sam Ruby
Re: Forms on file only shown for members?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:59 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The committer screen only shows forms on file for those that are
> currently members.
>
> Surely at least the ICLA link should be shown for non-members?
I don't think so.
Here are the list of people who can access those documents, from
pit-authorization-template
[/documents]
@member = rw
@legal = rw
@pmc-chairs = rw
@staff = rw
@svnadmins = rw
whimsysvn = r
* =
Adding pmc-chairs is defensible, but adding all committers will simply
provide them with a link that they can't follow.
- Sam Ruby