GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 534315
Add foundation membership fields in LDAP
Last modified: 2013-11-21 14:55:05 UTC
> +-----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+ > | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | > +-----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+ > | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | > | firstname | varchar(50) | YES | | NULL | | > | lastname | varchar(50) | YES | | NULL | | > | email | varchar(100) | YES | | NULL | | > | comments | text | YES | | NULL | | > | first_added | date | NO | | 0000-00-00 | | > | last_renewed_on | date | YES | | NULL | | > | last_update | timestamp | NO | | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | | > | resigned_on | date | YES | | NULL | | > +-----------------+--------------+------+-----+---------------------+----------------+
Regarding fields: I imagine the interface would just have a group that the membership committee can activate/deactivate; together with the group for the @gnome.org email alias. comments: what is this for? maybe let them edit the description already in mango? firstname/lastname: Currently Mango only has fullname, no distinction between firstname and lastname first_added: should add last_renewed_on: should add resigned_on: should add last_update: don't see the need, if there is one, must be done in a generic way email: already in mango, however: often email address differs between foundation db and ldap
brunobol: Can you comment regarding the questions I have above? vuntz: you too?
(In reply to comment #1) > Regarding fields: > > I imagine the interface would just have a group that the membership committee > can activate/deactivate; together with the group for the @gnome.org email > alias. It's a good idea. There is no way to "deactivate members" so far. > comments: what is this for? maybe let them edit the description already in > mango? Comments are important to keep the things linked, I think. The Membership Committee uses comments for keep the number of RT ticket which was resolved to add the member. Also we can use comments to put info about renew, resignation, etc. The field can be named as "membership_comments". > firstname/lastname: Currently Mango only has fullname, no distinction between > firstname and lastname When I'm adding new members, I see these two fields. Are you sure about the current status of Mango? Or... there are in Mango, but not in LDAP? > first_added: should add > last_renewed_on: should add > resigned_on: should add These three are important. > last_update: don't see the need, if there is one, must be done in a generic way Really, we not need that filed. > email: already in mango, however: often email address differs between > foundation db and ldap Is there a way to unify the databases? I think (just a personal opinion) we should use only @gnome.org (for those who have) e-mails in our database.
First, potential issue: this means the membership committee will have to choose a userid for members. You probably want sysadmin to check for this. (In reply to comment #1) > Regarding fields: > > I imagine the interface would just have a group that the membership committee > can activate/deactivate; together with the group for the @gnome.org email > alias. I'm not sure what "together" means, but if it means "first one is enabled => second one is automatically enabled", I don't know if it's good or not (need to think about it). > comments: what is this for? maybe let them edit the description already in > mango? It was used for various things, like the comment in the first tab in mango for sysadmin, IIRC. > firstname/lastname: Currently Mango only has fullname, no distinction between > firstname and lastname To be honest, this can probably be removed. Some people have strange name where it's impossible to know what is the first name and what is the last name. > first_added: should add > last_renewed_on: should add > resigned_on: should add > > last_update: don't see the need, if there is one, must be done in a generic way Probably not that useful. > email: already in mango, however: often email address differs between > foundation db and ldap It shouldn't, IMHO :-) Also, things that we could add and that probably belong to another bug (as an opt-in): + birthday + GPS coordinates + t-shirt size + preferred ice cream flavor + (many more useful things if we take time to think about it) But those things are more stuff that people should edit in their profile when this will be possible. I'm too lazy to open a new bug, I guess. And I know Olav has nothing to do today ;-)
When I talk about Mango, I likely just mean proper Mango aka LDAP ;-) Regarding email address: Ideally I'd like to have the ability to have multiple email addresses, but for now the email address in LDAP will be the one. Regarding together (@gnome.org alias + foundation group): available for committee to change. So there will be two separate checkboxes. This as sometimes people do have email alias without foundation membership (e.g. if they quit). Plus not all foundation members want an alias. Note: At one point sometime in the future it would be nice that people could change that checkbox themselves (if foundation member). Blue sky ;) For comments, perhaps reuse the box already there? Or is there a real need to keep it separate from existing sysadmin/accounts comments? Can only think of potential security issues. Regarding userid: My intention is to enhance: https://mango.gnome.org/new_account.php. Perhaps a separate form with the same functionality. Then the voucher will go to the membership committee, finally it will go to the accounts team for final setup (userid check). Note: For users already with an account, the committee would just enable the group.
(In reply to comment #4) > Also, things that we could add and that probably belong to another bug (as an > opt-in): > + birthday > + GPS coordinates > + t-shirt size > + preferred ice cream flavor > + (many more useful things if we take time to think about it) > But those things are more stuff that people should edit in their profile when > this will be possible. I'm too lazy to open a new bug, I guess. And I know Olav > has nothing to do today ;-) I totally agree. :-) Way to go! I think weed need more personal detail about ours members. Currently, our (Foundation) database is very "not humanized". Also, I will add a http://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/2008/Events/IceCreamContest Do you think you're the only ice cream lover? ;-)
(In reply to comment #5) > When I talk about Mango, I likely just mean proper Mango aka LDAP ;-) Sorry. I've missunderstood. > Regarding email address: Ideally I'd like to have the ability to have multiple > email addresses, but for now the email address in LDAP will be the one. > > Regarding together (@gnome.org alias + foundation group): available for > committee to change. So there will be two separate checkboxes. This as > sometimes people do have email alias without foundation membership (e.g. if > they quit). Plus not all foundation members want an alias. > Note: At one point sometime in the future it would be nice that people could > change that checkbox themselves (if foundation member). Blue sky ;) Looking with merchandising eyes, we all should want (and use) the alias. > For comments, perhaps reuse the box already there? Or is there a real need to > keep it separate from existing sysadmin/accounts comments? Can only think of > potential security issues. Vincent, what you think? I think separate things is better. > Regarding userid: My intention is to enhance: > https://mango.gnome.org/new_account.php. Perhaps a separate form with the same > functionality. Then the voucher will go to the membership committee, finally it > will go to the accounts team for final setup (userid check). > Note: For users already with an account, the committee would just enable the > group. The very best way to do the whole process.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > For comments, perhaps reuse the box already there? Or is there a real need to > > keep it separate from existing sysadmin/accounts comments? Can only think of > > potential security issues. > > Vincent, what you think? I think separate things is better. No strong opinion here. Both approaches make sense.
Status update: Have defined the following LDAP attributes: * foundationJoinDate * foundationRenewDate * foundationResignedDate * foundationCommitteeComment Perhaps needs more. OpenLDAP unfortunately doesn't do greater / less than comparisons :-( so I'm thinking of a: * foundationStatus containing a char for A: Active R: Resigned N: Needs renewal and then using cron to update this every day.
The GNOME Infrastructure Team is currently migrating its bug / issue tracker away from Bugzilla to Request Tracker and therefore all the currently open bugs have been closed and marked as OBSOLETE. The following move will also act as a cleanup for very old and ancient tickets that were still living on Bugzilla. If your issue still hasn't been fixed as of today please report it again on the relevant RT queue. More details about the available queues you can report the bug against can be found at https://wiki.gnome.org/Sysadmin/RequestTracker. Thanks for your patience, the GNOME Infrastructure Team