incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: [discuss] Move podling rosters to LDAP
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2016 02:18:15 GMT
Actually adding gstein this time.

- Sam Ruby

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> cc += gstein
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <> wrote:
>> Did this conclude..? Just in case it didn't, here's my +1 as well to
>> make podling membership be in proper LDAP groups; with email
>> notifications to private@podling as you mention.
> This did not conclude, but you picked an opportune time to resurrect
> this thread with Greg joining the infrastructure team.  In fact, I was
> planning to restart this thread for exactly that reason; thank you for
> doing it.
> My assessment previously was that there wasn't enough demand at the
> time to overcome inertia.  This change will undoubtedly break things
> temporarily, but nothing that can't be fixed quickly.
>> (I am lucky enough to have faced the asf-authorization-template a
>> couple of times :) )
> Join the club. :-)  The current process sucks, doesn't it.  :-)
>> Ensuring is updated would also make it easier for
>> podlings to refer to a canonical list of who are their members; which
>> would work somewhat the same way after graduating.
> That's part of the discussion I would like to have.  I'm proposing
> that members of the podling can update the group.  Currently only PMC
> chairs can modify PMCs.  And furthermore, PMC chairs can modify *any*
> PMC, not just the one(s) they chair.
> I'd like to change this so that PMC members can modify their own
> group.  And I believe that the increased notifications that this tool
> will provide will enable proper oversight.
> I also believe this to be fully in line with the President's (Ross's)
> desire to enable self-service.
> But a change of this magnitude to the way that we operate is something
> that requires a critical mass of support.  Thanks for lending your
> voice to this discussion.
>> Letting podling members modify the group themselves is good (as you
>> said the worst they can do is add another committer), as long as we'll
>> keep the account creation process under the hands of ASF Members (as
>> it is now).
> ASF members and officers.
> By the way, if you ever want to submit an account request, you might
> want to try; it loads much
> faster than; if you like it, spread the
> word.
> - Sam Ruby
>> On 2 September 2016 at 18:52, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, John D. Ament <>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:42 PM Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>>>> The first stage would be migrating existing lists to LDAP.  This will
>>>>> require some small changes to whimsy and the phone book application.
>>>>> The whole effort will only take a few hours and be spread over a few
>>>>> days elapsed time.
>>>>> To prepare, we will need to decide who gets to modify these lists, and
>>>>> who gets notified.  I propose that members of podlings be able to modify
>>>>> the list, and the private list associated with that podling be notified
>>>>> on changes.  Alternate choices would include mentors for the podling,
>>>>> the IPMC.  Given that notification facilitates oversight, I encourage
>>>>> this to be pushed down to the podling, but will go with whatever the
>>>>> consensus turns out to be.
>>>> My vote would be for mentors to be able to do this.  The podlings don't
>>>> know enough yet to manage this on their own.  I would be concerned of
>>>> missed process steps if the podling themselves could do it.
>>> See Mark's comment, and my response to it.
>>>>> The second stage would be to define an interface for adding (and perhaps
>>>>> removing) podlings.  This could be limited to the IPMC and the web
>>>>> interface could ensure that it is only possible to create entries that
>>>>> are present in podlings.xml.
>>>> Could this lead to the eventual removal of podlings.xml ?
>>> It could lead to where-ever the IPMC wants to go. :-)
>>> My preference is that the canonical definition be in SVN, git, LDAP or
>>> some such, and that tools like whimsy remain only a convenient
>>> mechanism to update these definitions.
>>>> Does any of this have a relationship to ?
>>> At a minimum, both would derive information from a common source.
>>> My understanding is that the focus of is to
>>> provide a public-facing and read-only interface to this data.
>>> The whimsy roster tool would provide an authenticated read-write
>>> interface to this data.  And a non-exclusive one.  Other tools could
>>> be written that update that information.
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message