SVN Account Request - Ned Schwartz <ned@theinterned.net>

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

mozilla.org
Repository Account Requests
RESOLVED FIXED
8 years ago
8 years ago

People

(Reporter: Ned Schwartz, Assigned: fox2mike)

Tracking

Details

(Whiteboard: ssh-key, form, voucher1, voucher2)

Attachments

(1 attachment)

Comment hidden (empty)
Ned is helping with drumbeat; I vouch for him.

Ned: can you send in the relevant form?
http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/
(see step 8)

Gerv
(Reporter)

Comment 2

8 years ago
Created attachment 433348 [details]
Ned Schwartz's public key

as per step 7
(Reporter)

Comment 3

8 years ago
I have sent off my agreement by email to emcclure@mozilla.com
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
Summary: Ned Schwartz SVN access → SVN Account Request - Ned Schwartz <ned@theinterned.net>
Whiteboard: ssh-key, voucher

Comment 4

8 years ago
I have received Ned's Committer's Agreement.
reed: does that whiteboard stuff mean those items have been provided, or are needed?

If no further vouching is needed, we can pass this over to IT.

Gerv
The whiteboard markers indicate items that have been provided.

Which portions of the svn repo is this request for?
Whiteboard: ssh-key, voucher → ssh-key, form, voucher
(Reporter)

Comment 7

8 years ago
I would like at least access to mozilla.org and drumbeat.org.

Thanks!
(In reply to comment #7)
> I would like at least access to mozilla.org and drumbeat.org.

Why do you need access to www.mozilla.org?
Ned is being nominated for level 2 access - which will eventually mean "access to all of SVN which isn't an exception" (mostly production tags). I know we are still currently working out what the exceptions are and the fine details, but in the mean time, it seems to me that people who are trusted at this level should get access to trees they ask for, just by asking.

Gerv
(In reply to comment #9)
> Ned is being nominated for level 2 access - which will eventually mean "access
> to all of SVN which isn't an exception" (mostly production tags). I know we are
> still currently working out what the exceptions are and the fine details, but
> in the mean time, it seems to me that people who are trusted at this level
> should get access to trees they ask for, just by asking.

As you point out, there are exceptions, of which www.mozilla.org is one of them. Therefore, my question stands. We don't just freely give out access to www.mozilla.org without a valid reason.
(In reply to comment #1)
> Ned is helping with drumbeat; I vouch for him.

For what code module are you the module owner?
> As you point out, there are exceptions, of which www.mozilla.org is one of
> them.

You are quite right; I forgot mozilla.org doesn't have a production tag. Ned: if you want access to mozilla.org, you need permission from its owner. I think that's probably David Boswell. Reed: is that right?

> For what code module are you the module owner?

I am de facto owner of drumbeat.org, because the long-term owner (mhaggerty) doesn't yet have access of his own (bug 552653). If you think that's not good enough, I can go and find someone else to vouch. Or mhaggerty can do it, by commenting here. (Michael?)

Gerv
(In reply to comment #12)
> > As you point out, there are exceptions, of which www.mozilla.org is one of
> > them.
> 
> You are quite right; I forgot mozilla.org doesn't have a production tag. Ned:
> if you want access to mozilla.org, you need permission from its owner. I think
> that's probably David Boswell. Reed: is that right?

Not completely, no. David and I are both the module owners.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Module_Owners_Activities_Modules#www.mozilla.org_Module

> > For what code module are you the module owner?
> 
> I am de facto owner of drumbeat.org, because the long-term owner (mhaggerty)
> doesn't yet have access of his own (bug 552653). If you think that's not good
> enough, I can go and find someone else to vouch. Or mhaggerty can do it, by
> commenting here. (Michael?)

Yet drumbeat.org is not an actual module, as far as I can tell... My understanding of the requirement specified under https://wiki.mozilla.org/Commit_Access_Policy#Level_2_-_General_Access is that the voucher must be the module owner of an actual *existing* (and *approved*) module (via the normal m.governance / module-ownership@ means, etc.)
(In reply to comment #13)
> Not completely, no. David and I are both the module owners.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Module_Owners_Activities_Modules#www.mozilla.org_Module

OK. My view is, for simplicity, we should have a "single owner" or perhaps a "one of many" approach to this sort of permission, in that if one module owner doesn't trust the other one, we have bigger problems than who gets commit access. 

So then you are quite right: Ned needs to convince you or David that he needs access to mozilla.org.

> Yet drumbeat.org is not an actual module, as far as I can tell... 

But it's an actual project with an actual website and actual users and actual code which people are working on. What happens when the module approval process lags behind reality? Does all work on the code stop?

Is there documentation about what you do to get an official module approved?

Gerv
(In reply to comment #14)
> OK. My view is, for simplicity, we should have a "single owner" or perhaps a
> "one of many" approach to this sort of permission, in that if one module owner
> doesn't trust the other one, we have bigger problems than who gets commit
> access.

Sure... not implying that David and I both have to approve people. Either one of us is fine.

> > Yet drumbeat.org is not an actual module, as far as I can tell... 
> 
> But it's an actual project with an actual website and actual users and actual
> code which people are working on. What happens when the module approval process
> lags behind reality? Does all work on the code stop?

Generally, modules evolve out of other modules. For new code modules, thought has generally been put into them for a while before the announcement is made, so the appropriate people/groups have been contacted concerning such. In the case of websites, there are very few modules (I can count the number of website-based modules on one hand). Do note the policy clearly says "one voucher - any Mozilla code module owner", so it is requiring that a module exist.

> Is there documentation about what you do to get an official module approved?

There's http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html and https://wiki.mozilla.org/Module_Owners_Activities_Modules#Governance_Submodule:_Module_Ownership_System, but there isn't specific documentation that I know of... Ask Mitchell?

Comment 16

8 years ago
Chiming in per Gerv's message.

I am the 'owner' of drumbeat, even though I don't have svn access yet.

I have no problem with Ned getting access, we are going to need people to do commits for CSS style changes.

M
(Reporter)

Comment 17

8 years ago
Hello,

in regards to me having access to mozilla.org, I included that in this request as I have done work on that component in the past and David Boswell has mentioned to me in the past that it might be worth while for me to get commit access to mozilla.org.

The more pressing access would be for drumbeat.org. 

If mozilla.org access is becoming a mcguffin, perhaps we should just focus on drumbeat.org and I can open a  separate ticket for access to mozilla.org.

In the mean time, I have contacted David Boswell and asked him to take a look at this ticket.

sorry for any confusion.

Comment 18

8 years ago
I'm happy to vouch for Ned for mozilla.org access.  As mentioned, he's done work for the site in the past and I've just ended up checking in a bunch of stuff that he packaged up for me to commit.

Comment 19

8 years ago
Now that David has vouched for Ned, do we have what we need to proceed? Anything else required here?
Over to IT for LDAP account creation with svn_mozilla bit and authz for /projects/crm and @mozilla-org-webmasters.
Assignee: marcia → server-ops
Whiteboard: ssh-key, form, voucher → ssh-key, form, voucher1, voucher2
(Assignee)

Comment 21

8 years ago
LDAP account created, SSH key added to that, password details sent via email.

svn enabled and svn_mozilla bit flipped with rw on the above mentioned sections.
Assignee: server-ops → shyam
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Updated

8 years ago
Component: Account Request: SVN → Repository Account Requests
QA Contact: svn-acct-req → repo-acct-req
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.