[DDI-SRG] Levels of Access to Mantis Bug Tracker

[Wendy Thomas]

During today's TIC meeting we discussed again the issue of openness for 
the DDI bug tracking system. We have currently had only one implementer 
request access and received no requests for read access. For that matter 
less than half of TIC members have established access.

The question was raised both in relation to who should be allowed 
read access (openess of bug process) and the actual process for gaining 
READ access to the bug tracker. This is the current situation.

--A notice was sent out to the Expert Committee and DDI User Group that 
they can have READ access upon request
--There is currently no criteria for denying read access as anyone can 
belong to the DDI User Group
--Requests are sent to Wendy who authorizes access status and passes the 
information to J for processing
--This information is not listed on the Mantis site

Technical options include:
--A direct submission for access on the site, by-passing Wendy
--Creation of a "guest" login for READ access with information on the 
login site for using this

The issues are two-fold:
1) Do we want anyone to be able to file a bug or comment?

Currently we have restricted bug filed in the Bug Tracker to people who 
have submitted Use Cases. This is based on the decision of the Expert 
group that the Use Cases are the criteria for passing the Candidate Review 
for publication. All other comments are submitted to Wendy who responds, 
captures the discussion for the Discussion Log and files bugs as needed. 
Information on how to submit these comments is on the DDI 3.0 page and 
contained in the email sent to members.

    1a) Do we want this alternative means of submitting comments and bugs 
on the home page of the bug tracker as well?

2) Do we want anyone to be able to view the bug tracker? (Read only 
access)

    2a) If not, what are the criteria for denying access?
    2b) If not, what information are we choosing to shield (all, portions, 
identifiers)? Is there an alternative for limited read access or 
publishing a detailed listing of the open pieces?
    2c) Regardless to the answer to 2, can we facilitate the process of 
granting READ access  to reduce the burden on TIC members?

My read of the group is that we have a range of opinions on this topic. 
What I'm looking for is justifications for the various positions and a 
discussion of the implications. Finally, regardless of the ultimate 
decision can we provide  instructions from various access points to make 
access and submission options clear to the user?

If there are additional issues that I have not described please add them. 
The purpose of this email is to open the discussion. We have talked about 
this a number of times, but each time there were a different group of TIC 
members on the call. Please make your position and reasoning known to the 
group. I'll take the discussion then draft a decision that reflects some 
form of concensus. We need to recognize that there are number of different 
positions on this and I'd like us to come to a final position and then set 
the subject aside.

Wendy

Wendy L. Thomas                          Phone: +1 612.624.4389
Data Access Core Director		 Fax:   +1 612.626.8375
Minnesota Population Center              Email: wlt at pop.umn.edu
University of Minnesota
50 Willey Hall
225 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455