Carsten Book [:Tomcat] Reporter
	Description • 8 years ago

Iris is the new Taipei Sheriff and she will work out of Taipeh as Code Sheriff monitoring the trees, doing backouts etc..

For doing backouts she needs Level 3 Access.

Doug, Jst can i get a ack for this since you are module owners for core :)

	Josh Matthews [:jdm]
	Comment 1 • 8 years ago

We'll need an email address, a public key, and Iris to acknowledge the commit access requirements per https://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/.

	Carsten Book [:Tomcat] Reporter
	Comment 2 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Josh Matthews [:jdm] from comment #1)
> We'll need an email address, a public key, and Iris to acknowledge the
> commit access requirements per https://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/.

n-i iris

	Iris Hsiao [:ihsiao]
	Comment 3 • 8 years ago

I have read, and agree to abide by, the Commit Access Requirements.
I'd like to use ihsiao@mozilla.com as my login name.
Attached is my public key.

	Josh Matthews [:jdm]
	Comment 4 • 8 years ago

If another sheriff will vouch for the request we can proceed.

	Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)
	Comment 5 • 8 years ago

L3 requires code peers to vouch.

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 6 • 8 years ago

I will vouch for Iris

	Marcia Knous [:marcia] Assignee
	Comment 7 • 8 years ago

Could someone could confirm Iris is being actively mentored by one of the sheriffs? I understand she needs L3 for doing backouts, but at the same time she is jumping right to L3 without ever having any other level of Commit access.

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 8 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Marcia Knous [:marcia - use ni] from comment #7)
> Could someone could confirm Iris is being actively mentored by one of the
> sheriffs? I understand she needs L3 for doing backouts, but at the same time
> she is jumping right to L3 without ever having any other level of Commit
> access.

Yes, she has support from both Tomcat and Kwierso

	David Burns :automatedtester
	Comment 9 • 8 years ago

and then will have community sheriffs to help her if tehy are around too

	Carsten Book [:Tomcat] Reporter
	Comment 10 • 8 years ago

yeah i vouch too if that needed

	Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)
	Comment 11 • 8 years ago

If we're going to proceed without "two vouchers - module owners or peers of code stored in a repo at this level", can we at least change the commit access policy to special case the Tree Sheriff's module?  This has come up over and over again.

	Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)
	Comment 12 • 8 years ago

I guess comment 11 would be on Mitchell.

	Johnny Stenback (:jst)
	Comment 13 • 8 years ago

I'll vouch as well if needed, and sheriffs needing an exception process seems reasonable to me.

	Mitchell Baker
	Comment 14 • 8 years ago

Thanks Kyle

Please note that this comment is 100% about policy, and 0% about any individual person.

With our policies, some degree of iteration is acceptable.  When writing a policy for something we've already been doing and are ready to codify, we've looked to see what works, leavened with a bit of aspiration.  When we find ourselves consistently doing something else, it's time to see if (a) the policy needs changing, or (b) the day to day pressures are pushing us to lower important standards.  In the first case change is warranted.  The second requires a fair amount of attention to understand and change.

so here I'll ask those of you involved on a daily basis -- should we be working towards fewer exceptions to the policy?  meaning we'd have more focus on guiding people through the earlier levels of Commit Access, and using the excepiton process rearely?  Or do we get the same level of reliability, comfort and security by changing the policy to describe the exception path?

	Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)
	Comment 15 • 8 years ago

I think we should add the exception.  The current requirement is "two vouchers - module owners or peers of code stored in a repo at this level" which works for everyone hacking on code, but not for the sheriffs, who a) need to be able to push to these repositories to do their jobs and b) are not writing patches that would naturally get review from module owners and peers.  I'm proposing that we add the "Tree Sheriffs" module as a specific carveout where the owners/peers are allowed to vouch for L3 access despite not being owners/peers of *code*.

What we've been doing is having random people who do meet the requirements vouch on behalf of the tree sheriffs.  Let's pave the cow path.

	Vinh Hua [:vinh]
	Comment 16 • 8 years ago

+hg bit enabled
bits added:
    cn=scm_level_1,ou=groups,dc=mozilla
    cn=scm_level_3,ou=groups,dc=mozilla
    cn=scm_level_2,ou=groups,dc=mozilla

	Marcia Knous [:marcia] Assignee
	Comment 17 • 8 years ago

Resolving fixed. Comment 15 should be spun into a new bug if it has not been already.

	Mitchell Baker
	Comment 18 • 8 years ago

I've created Bug 1291326 - Amend Commit Access Policy level 3 to add an exception for Sheriffs