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

[I-Lin Kuo]

Using the CodeHaus project XFire as a model, their access policy is:

  - browsing is open to anyone without registration
  - bug reporting and commenting is open to anyone with a registration (me).
Registration is immediate and automatic (confirmation of valid email needed
to click on a link).
  - bug updates require higher level access.


In general, my preference would be towards an open transparent process
common to open source development process rather than a closed and tightly
controlled process characteristic of standards committees such as W3C or
JCP, even though we are a standards committee.

Reasons:
  - A tightly-controlled opaque process requires more manpower to
administer.
  - An opaque process is useful when the members are large corporations with
trade secrets and commercial interests to protect. That's not the case with
the DDI Alliance.
  - Our current problem is a lack of feedback and participation, not a high
noise-to-signal ratio. A tight process is useful for reducing
noise-to-signal ratio. I think a more open process will increase
participation at a very acceptable cost of moderately greater noise.
Allowing anyone to report bugs and to comment on them greatly reduces the
barrier to participation. I really believe that a lot of our problems with
the lack of DDI Alliance members participation is because we've erected a
very high barrier to participation. Currently, if someone outside the inner
circle of the TIC or the outer circle of the Alliance wants to report or
comment on a bug, they have to search the website to find someone to email
to, and then the email will get to Wendy after a few hops. This makes dialog
on a bug difficult. Furthermore, they don't know what happens to the bug
after they report it (this is the major problem with the excel comment
sheets) unless they make an effort to write Wendy and ask. On the other
hand, if they are immediately able to report a bug and/or comment via
Mantis, dialog is easier, and they can easily view the status of the bug at
any time by going to Mantis. I should add that making openness and
transparency the default and making commenting via Mantis the default
channel of communication does not preclude the use of more private channels
to Sanda ;)



Refresher on Mantis access levels (copied from comments on this page
http://www.mantisbt.org/manual/
) :
=========================
How to modify files, the access level is like this:

viewer can (other than view bugs, obviously):
- view summary
- view attachments

reporter can do everything that a viewer can, and:
- report bug
- monitor bug
- send a reminder to another user
- upload bug file
- add bugnote
- add profile
- close bug
- reopen bug
- delete bug
- move bug

updater can do everything that a reporter can, and
- update bugs

developer can do everything that a reporter can, and:
- view private news
- reopen bug
- private bug (?? seems not to be used for anything)
- handle bug
- leave a private bugnote (?)
- update bugnote
- show monitor list

manager can do everything that a developer can, and:
- upload project files
- manager project threshold
- manage news threshold
- add users to project (I think)
- manage custom field links (?)

administrator can do everything that a manager can, and:
- delete project
- create project
- "private project" (not used anywhere)
- manage users (create, modify, delete)
- manage custom fields (?)

On 7/26/07, Wendy Thomas < wlt at pop.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-SRG mailing list
> DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-srg
>



-- 
I-Lin Kuo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20070728/8c1272d6/attachment.html