At some point (~2013?) we added a last_seen_date to the user profiles. The oldest value there is in 2013 I believe. I would like to disable all of those accounts. Plan A: 1. write script to do this (this will be ~100,000 accounts) 2. optionally send a notification about this. Plan B: 1. Compile the list of impacted users 2. Email them, give them a week to sign in 3. If the emails bounce or they don't sign in, disable them.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Priority: -- → P3
I think this is a great idea. Note also bug 1112130, which is to develop a data-retention policy (presumably starting with just documenting what we do now, which is, I believe, very little). Feel free to take that bug off my hands, as I have never made the time to start it.
I like both Plan A & B. Though I think I'm leaning more toward Plan B to give affected users a warning that this is happening & the chance to avoid that. Thoughts: I'm very interested in this. I helped Dylan reach this epiphany while asking for help to remove a few emails that were watching a entire product because I knew they were very old accounts and not active members based on my memory & investigations. Just to make sure I'm not causing a huge inconvenience to the Bugzilla community in some unforeseen way. I'll just ask some probably obvious questions to ease my conscience: Disabled accounts won't lose their comment, attachment and created bug history? Disabled accounts won't need to reach a BMO admin to reactivate their accounts? And, that's all I can think of. :P Dylan explained that the accounts just become grey. As happens with ex-employees that don't transition to a personal email. So a grey username will be seen in the public profile & bug comments I imagine. If this helps cut down on the 17 million email bounces (over a few months time, not in a single month) that were seen last year, I'd be pretty happy & feel like I helped Bugzilla save money on resources & run smoother in general. Thanks again for that stat Dylan! People really do watch those *Bugzilla meeting AirMo videos. ;) * https://air.mozilla.org/bugzilla-project-meeting-20161228/ -> 16:09 - 16:50 mark 16:58 - 22:54 for Ideas how to handle email bounces in BMO Anyway that stat got me thinking about defunct email accounts watching large/popular products or components with a lot of activity & sending bounces back to BMO. :)
Will this have a net performance improvement on BMO, or should we do the additional step of removing delinquent and bouncing watchers?
(In reply to Noah (oldtimer) [:Noah] from comment #2) > I like both Plan A & B. Though I think I'm leaning more toward Plan B to > give affected users a warning that this is happening & the chance to avoid > that. > > Thoughts: > I'm very interested in this. I helped Dylan reach this epiphany while asking Thanks again! > Just to make sure I'm not causing a huge inconvenience to the Bugzilla > community in some unforeseen way. I'll just ask some probably obvious > questions to ease my conscience: > Disabled accounts won't lose their comment, attachment and created bug > history? Yep, we never delete accounts. The most someone can do is have their account "forgotten" in which case the name and email are anonymized. > Disabled accounts won't need to reach a BMO admin to reactivate their > accounts? Disabled accounts would need an admin to re-enable them.
(In reply to Emma Humphries ☕️ [:emceeaich] (UTC-8) +needinfo me from comment #3) > Will this have a net performance improvement on BMO, or should we do the > additional step of removing delinquent and bouncing watchers? Nothing perceived, but we might have less load on the jobqueue nodes. I think #infosec would like it from a perspective that the older an account is, the more likely the password has been compromised somehow. Jonathan: As a security person, does it give you warm fuzzies that people that haven't logged in for four years wouldn't be able to login now? Without some human involvement? :)
:dylan - yes, if someone isn't using their account for an extended period of time I think it's perfectly reasonable to require human interaction to revive the account. I think this would be especially the case for any users with privileged group access, which you may consider an even shorter time window (6 months/1 year).
Groups can already have an idle removal option set. A majority (perhaps 100%) of these abandoned accounts do not belong to any interesting groups.
Depends on: 1349411
Did you get a chance to talk to Marshall about ancillary concerns for this?
(In reply to Dylan Hardison [:dylan] from comment #8) > Did you get a chance to talk to Marshall about ancillary concerns for this? Yes, these are mainly scheduling concerns with respect to some new requests coming from Jeff and Marshall. Will report under separate cover.
Discussed with :jeff, we're okay to go pending :merwin's approval of the language we use in the disabled message. :merwin, to disable an account, we enter a non-blank disabled message, this is the message we'd like to use, we will go ahead with disabling the inactive accounts once you've signed off. "Your account has been disabled because you have not logged on to bugzilla.mozilla.org in the past 4 years. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you wish to reactivate your account."
Emmma, looks good to me. Thanks.
Per discussion from Tuesday's BMO meeting, we're go to do this.
Am I correct in thinking that disabled accounts no longer appear in CC list auto-complete? If so, this will also reduce the noise there which would be great :-)
That is correct.
Let's schedule a window to do this work.
It doesn't need a window, it just needs to have the right priority. I spent a lot of times trying to do moves that require migrating versions which takes a long time.
it also needs a script to do this.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.