gcc bugzilla accounts

gcc bugzilla accounts

[Damien Ruscoe]

Im trying to create an account on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ to 
report a bug.
Although I receive this message

User account creation has been restricted.
Contact your administrator or the maintainer (overseers@gcc.gnu.org) for 
information about creating an account.

Could you help here please.

Thanks
Damien,

GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

A number of GCC users are reporting on various forums (Twitter,
Reddit, Stackoverflow) that requests for GCC Bugzilla account creation
are not receiving responses.  Additionally, some users apparently use
email clients that default to HTML and the users are reporting that
the email requests are bouncing.  The SPAM accounts are a real
problem, but the new, manual mechanism for account creation is not
working smoothly.

This is a very bad experience for GCC developers and greatly inhibits
the crowd-sourcing of bug reports for GCC.  It likely is driving away
GCC users and developers.  It's clear that new users are giving up
trying to report bugs.

What can be done to improve this situation?  It seems that it would be
helpful to provide a specific email address for GCC Bugzilla account
requests, especially one that accepted HTML email messages, and
specific individuals to confirm and approve requests.  This also might
be a good task for new GCC volunteers.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:

> What can be done to improve this situation?  It seems that it would be
> helpful to provide a specific email address for GCC Bugzilla account
> requests, especially one that accepted HTML email messages, and
> specific individuals to confirm and approve requests.  This also might
> be a good task for new GCC volunteers.

In addition, the message given when you try to create an account - after 
submitting the account creation form - is not helpful:

"User account creation filtered due to spam. User account creation has 
been restricted. Contact your administrator or the maintainer 
(overseers@gcc.gnu.org) for information about creating an account. Please 
press Back and try again.".

"your administrator" is too ambiguous about who it refers to.  "for 
information about creating an account" is also unhelpful.  "Please press 
Back and try again." gives a misleading impression that trying the account 
creation form again could help.  Also, the fact that the account creation 
form says

   To create a GCC Bugzilla account, all you need to do is to enter a
   legitimate email address. You will receive an email at this address to
   confirm the creation of your account. You will not be able to log in
   until you receive the email. If it doesn't arrive within a reasonable
   amount of time, you may contact the maintainer of this Bugzilla
   installation at overseers@gcc.gnu.org.

when it doesn't in fact let you create an account is thoroughly 
misleading.

I'd suggest replacing "Contact your administrator or the maintainer 
(overseers@gcc.gnu.org) for information about creating an account. Please 
press Back and try again." with something along the lines of "Contact 
<address> to request an account.  You should receive a response within 24 
hours.".  And the account creation form should not say you can create an 
account through that form when you can't.

(Obviously you need enough people covering the account creation address, 
not all away simultaneously, to create the accounts within the declared 
time.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/25/2017 12:26 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I'd suggest replacing "Contact your administrator or the maintainer 
> (overseers@gcc.gnu.org) for information about creating an account. Please 
> press Back and try again." with something along the lines of "Contact 
> <address> to request an account.  You should receive a response within 24 
> hours.".  And the account creation form should not say you can create an 
> account through that form when you can't.

Why are we filtering account creation?

We stopped doing that in the default sourceware bugzilla configuration.

Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.

Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?

I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
new bugs, which we can zap entirely.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
> 
> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
> 
> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.

Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py 
could mark them as spam.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:

> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
>> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
>> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
>> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
>> 
>> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
>> 
>> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
>> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
>> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.
>
> Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py 
> could mark them as spam.

Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
moderation strategy.  Anybody could create an account, but the first
time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
for moderation.  If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
changes would flow automatically.  If the moderator blocked the change,
the account would be disabled.  Then we would only require a few people
to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.

But that is just a wish.  I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
supports this approach.

Ian

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Gerald Pfeifer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1180 bytes --]

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
> moderation strategy.  Anybody could create an account, but the first
> time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
> for moderation.  If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
> changes would flow automatically.  If the moderator blocked the change,
> the account would be disabled.  Then we would only require a few people
> to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.
> 
> But that is just a wish.  I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
> supports this approach.

Funny enough, I was going to suggest something like this as well.

Allowing users to _create_ an account, but mute that account so
that it either needs to be unlocked (request sent to a list or
via a tool) or, even better, have a moderation approach such as
you suggest.

Bonus points if the number of moderated actions can be configured,
so that it becomes a bit harder than just posting a single comment
somewhere.

Frédéric, I am not sure you still are available to help as you have
in the past?  Is this something you see realistically?

Gerald

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Frédéric Buclin via overseers]

Le 25. 05. 17 à 22:35, Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
> Frédéric, I am not sure you still are available to help as you have
> in the past?  Is this something you see realistically?

Hi all,

I guess this discussion is happening again because you want me to remove
the restrictions for user account creation? :)

Bugzilla has no moderation support. And this is not something trivial to
implement, because the user may want to comment in a bug, or create a
new bug, or attach some file to a bug, etc... And then we must handle
messages displayed to the user explaining why his changes are in the
moderation queue and send notifications to admins (easy part), and store
moderated actions and data somewhere in the DB till an admin decides
what to do with them (hard part), etc...

It would be much easier to let the first action go through, and then put
the user account into a moderation list till an admin validates the user
account, but then you would have the same problems as described in bug
72856, see e.g. comment 6 [1].

You cannot expect upstream to do anything about it in the near future,
because the upstream project is in a semi-dead/broken state.

My original idea was to implement bug 72856 [1], but several voices were
against such an implementation. So I didn't investigate further.


[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72856


Frédéric

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
> Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>>> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
>>> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
>>> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
>>> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
>>>
>>> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
>>>
>>> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
>>> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
>>> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.
>>
>> Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py
>> could mark them as spam.
>
> Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
> moderation strategy.  Anybody could create an account, but the first
> time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
> for moderation.  If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
> changes would flow automatically.  If the moderator blocked the change,
> the account would be disabled.  Then we would only require a few people
> to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.
>
> But that is just a wish.  I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
> supports this approach.

What are the next steps to improve the GCC Bugzilla account creation
process to reduce the number of users and bug reporters who are driven
away?

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/31/2017 07:54 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>> Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
>>>> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
>>>> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
>>>> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
>>>>
>>>> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
>>>> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
>>>> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.
>>>
>>> Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py
>>> could mark them as spam.
>>
>> Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
>> moderation strategy.  Anybody could create an account, but the first
>> time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
>> for moderation.  If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
>> changes would flow automatically.  If the moderator blocked the change,
>> the account would be disabled.  Then we would only require a few people
>> to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.
>>
>> But that is just a wish.  I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
>> supports this approach.
> 
> What are the next steps to improve the GCC Bugzilla account creation
> process to reduce the number of users and bug reporters who are driven
> away?

Put together a GNU Toolchain fund project to fund the work? ;-)

Concretely I think we need a design document explaining how it should
work, and that needs to be discussed, and when it's ready we probably
would want upstream bugzilla to agree to it, and then we fund the work
to deliver it?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/31/2017 07:54 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>>> Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Instead there we allow users to create all of their own accounts, but by
>>>>> default you don't get editbugs. You have to have someone grant you editbugs,
>>>>> and that can be done by anyone else who previously had editbugs, so you can
>>>>> just email the list and someone will quickly bless you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the account creation still an anti-spam tactic?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a terrible one, the editbugs removal seems to have worked much
>>>>> better. Now spammers cant change any existing bugs. They can still file
>>>>> new bugs, which we can zap entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Spammers were filing new spam bugs about as fast as contrib/mark_spam.py
>>>> could mark them as spam.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think the ideal approach would be if bugzilla supported a
>>> moderation strategy.  Anybody could create an account, but the first
>>> time they filed a bug, or commented on a bug, their change would be held
>>> for moderation.  If a moderator approved a change, their subsequent
>>> changes would flow automatically.  If the moderator blocked the change,
>>> the account would be disabled.  Then we would only require a few people
>>> to periodically moderate new bugzilla users.
>>>
>>> But that is just a wish.  I have no reason to believe that bugzilla
>>> supports this approach.
>>
>> What are the next steps to improve the GCC Bugzilla account creation
>> process to reduce the number of users and bug reporters who are driven
>> away?
>
> Put together a GNU Toolchain fund project to fund the work? ;-)
>
> Concretely I think we need a design document explaining how it should
> work, and that needs to be discussed, and when it's ready we probably
> would want upstream bugzilla to agree to it, and then we fund the work
> to deliver it?

How can we improve the current situation while we bikeshed new
features for Bugzilla?  The current requests for account creation
either are being lost or not responded.  The current process needs to
be addressed.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

On May 31, 2017 8:41:55 AM EDT, David  >[...] current requests for account creation
>either are being lost or not responded.  

This is not true.  Every request that comes into overseers@ gets addressed.  We just don't spam you with a visible ack cc.

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
>
>
> On May 31, 2017 8:41:55 AM EDT, David  >[...] current requests for account creation
>>either are being lost or not responded.
>
> This is not true.  Every request that comes into overseers@ gets addressed.  We just don't spam you with a visible ack cc.

Frank,

Something is going wrong because I and others are seeing numerous
reports on social media of requests that receive no response.  As
mentioned earlier in the thread, some people report that they receive
automated bounce replies because their email clients send HTML
messages.  People are resorting to reporting bugs through social media
and Stackoverflow because they cannot report them through the proper
channels.  This needs to be fixed.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:22:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2017 8:41:55 AM EDT, David  >[...] current requests for account creation
>>>either are being lost or not responded.
>>
>>This is not true.  Every request that comes into overseers@ gets
>>addressed.  We just don't spam you with a visible ack cc.
>
>Something is going wrong because I and others are seeing numerous
>reports on social media of requests that receive no response.  As
>mentioned earlier in the thread, some people report that they receive
>automated bounce replies because their email clients send HTML
>messages.  People are resorting to reporting bugs through social media
>and Stackoverflow because they cannot report them through the proper
>channels.  This needs to be fixed.

There certainly are people who send html-only email to overseers asking
to have an account created.  That is an issue that they can fix for
themselves and many do.

Back when I thought I had some free time for sourceware, I started on a
all-in-one web form intended to sign up for a new account, add a new
group, or gain bugzilla access:

https://sourceware.org/account/

The intent was that requests for a new account would be sent to a list
of people who could act on the request and automatically create an
account without necessarily getting someone from overseers involved.

The above is just a stub.  It reflects my journey as I learned
javascript and php for my new job so it may be buggy.  However, would
something like the above be acceptable for at least an interim solution?

cgf

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Christopher Faylor
<cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:22:47AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
>>> On May 31, 2017 8:41:55 AM EDT, David  >[...] current requests for account creation
>>>>either are being lost or not responded.
>>>
>>>This is not true.  Every request that comes into overseers@ gets
>>>addressed.  We just don't spam you with a visible ack cc.
>>
>>Something is going wrong because I and others are seeing numerous
>>reports on social media of requests that receive no response.  As
>>mentioned earlier in the thread, some people report that they receive
>>automated bounce replies because their email clients send HTML
>>messages.  People are resorting to reporting bugs through social media
>>and Stackoverflow because they cannot report them through the proper
>>channels.  This needs to be fixed.
>
> There certainly are people who send html-only email to overseers asking
> to have an account created.  That is an issue that they can fix for
> themselves and many do.

Is there a reason that mail to overseers must reject HTML-only email?
Or maybe we need a separate email alias for GCC Bugzilla account
requests without the restriction.

One hypothesis: "bounce" messages due to HTML are being categorized as
SPAM or junk email and the user never receives the message.  The user
believes that the request was ignored.

Even if users can changes the email client settings, it's not clear
that this makes a good impression on users who want to contribute bug
reports.

>
> Back when I thought I had some free time for sourceware, I started on a
> all-in-one web form intended to sign up for a new account, add a new
> group, or gain bugzilla access:
>
> https://sourceware.org/account/
>
> The intent was that requests for a new account would be sent to a list
> of people who could act on the request and automatically create an
> account without necessarily getting someone from overseers involved.
>
> The above is just a stub.  It reflects my journey as I learned
> javascript and php for my new job so it may be buggy.  However, would
> something like the above be acceptable for at least an interim solution?

That definitely would be an improvement.  Of course, that form could
get overwhelmed with SPAM without some "I am not a Robot" test.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Joseph Myers]

On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:

> > There certainly are people who send html-only email to overseers asking
> > to have an account created.  That is an issue that they can fix for
> > themselves and many do.
> 
> Is there a reason that mail to overseers must reject HTML-only email?
> Or maybe we need a separate email alias for GCC Bugzilla account
> requests without the restriction.

Indeed, HTML email is the norm nowadays, and we should not expect users 
(as opposed to developers) to need to reconfigure their email clients to 
avoid sending it to be able to report bugs; we should work with the world 
as it is rather than making users jump through arbitrary hoops.

I think that both any address used for Bugzilla account requests, and 
*-help list addresses explicitly aimed at users seeking help rather than 
developers contributing to Sourceware-hosted projects, should accept HTML 
email and have more relaxed spam filtering than the main development 
lists.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:18:57PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> > There certainly are people who send html-only email to overseers asking
>> > to have an account created.  That is an issue that they can fix for
>> > themselves and many do.
>> 
>> Is there a reason that mail to overseers must reject HTML-only email?
>> Or maybe we need a separate email alias for GCC Bugzilla account
>> requests without the restriction.
>
>Indeed, HTML email is the norm nowadays, and we should not expect users 
>(as opposed to developers) to need to reconfigure their email clients to 
>avoid sending it to be able to report bugs; we should work with the world 
>as it is rather than making users jump through arbitrary hoops.
>
>I think that both any address used for Bugzilla account requests, and 
>*-help list addresses explicitly aimed at users seeking help rather than 
>developers contributing to Sourceware-hosted projects, should accept HTML 
>email and have more relaxed spam filtering than the main development 
>lists.

Sending email, whether it's html formatted or not, and waiting for the
amazingly-dedicated-but-human fche to deal with every request is not
ideal or scalable.  overseers was not intended to be a public place
where newbs send email.  If we really need to keep using this method,
and html is a barrier, then we need a new mailing list, populated with
gcc people, taking Frank out of the loop.  We could just set up an
email alias that forwarded requests to individuals without actually
setting up a full-featured mailing list.

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Christopher Faylor
<cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:18:57PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 May 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>>> > There certainly are people who send html-only email to overseers asking
>>> > to have an account created.  That is an issue that they can fix for
>>> > themselves and many do.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason that mail to overseers must reject HTML-only email?
>>> Or maybe we need a separate email alias for GCC Bugzilla account
>>> requests without the restriction.
>>
>>Indeed, HTML email is the norm nowadays, and we should not expect users
>>(as opposed to developers) to need to reconfigure their email clients to
>>avoid sending it to be able to report bugs; we should work with the world
>>as it is rather than making users jump through arbitrary hoops.
>>
>>I think that both any address used for Bugzilla account requests, and
>>*-help list addresses explicitly aimed at users seeking help rather than
>>developers contributing to Sourceware-hosted projects, should accept HTML
>>email and have more relaxed spam filtering than the main development
>>lists.
>
> Sending email, whether it's html formatted or not, and waiting for the
> amazingly-dedicated-but-human fche to deal with every request is not
> ideal or scalable.  overseers was not intended to be a public place
> where newbs send email.  If we really need to keep using this method,
> and html is a barrier, then we need a new mailing list, populated with
> gcc people, taking Frank out of the loop.  We could just set up an
> email alias that forwarded requests to individuals without actually
> setting up a full-featured mailing list.

If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide
those volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla
accounts?  This could be an opportunity to grow the GNU Toolchain
developer community with important but non-programming tasks.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
>Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide those
>volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla accounts?
>This could be an opportunity to grow the GNU Toolchain developer
>community with important but non-programming tasks.

Frédéric Buclin created a program called "bugzilla-createuser" that
is used on sourceware when a new account is created that needs
bugzilla access.  We could add a "create-bugzilla-account" command
to the limited shell that source-control-only users get so that
anyone with access to gcc's svn could create a bugzilla account.

So, you'd do something like:

ssh gcc.gnu.org create-bugzilla-user user password

cgf

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Christopher Faylor
<cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
>>Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide those
>>volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla accounts?
>>This could be an opportunity to grow the GNU Toolchain developer
>>community with important but non-programming tasks.
>
> Frédéric Buclin created a program called "bugzilla-createuser" that
> is used on sourceware when a new account is created that needs
> bugzilla access.  We could add a "create-bugzilla-account" command
> to the limited shell that source-control-only users get so that
> anyone with access to gcc's svn could create a bugzilla account.
>
> So, you'd do something like:
>
> ssh gcc.gnu.org create-bugzilla-user user password

I could ask for a volunteer to review GCC Bugzilla account requests on
the GCC Mailing List.  That seems like a reasonable start if a user
can be authorized with restricted privileges to create GCC BZ
accounts.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> I could ask for a volunteer to review GCC Bugzilla account requests on
> the GCC Mailing List.  That seems like a reasonable start if a user
> can be authorized with restricted privileges to create GCC BZ
> accounts.

Please identify a couple of gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla userids that should
receive the coveted "edituser" privilege bit and go for it.  Couple of
the folks on the gcc team already have full "admin" / "edituser"
privileges there, so you can self-serve today.

- FChE

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
> Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide
> those volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla
> accounts?  [...]

Where are we with this process?  Are gcc volunteers identified & ready
to start handling bugzilla account requests?

- FChE

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
>> Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide
>> those volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla
>> accounts?  [...]
>
> Where are we with this process?  Are gcc volunteers identified & ready
> to start handling bugzilla account requests?

We don't have any volunteers yet.

I have been considering where to publicize the request.  I probably
will send a message to the GCC Mailing List next week.

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

I received six offers to help.  Four from new volunteers -- students
from around the world, one from Jonathan Wakely and one from Richard
Kenner.

I would like to utilize this as an opportunity to grow the GCC
Community and allow more developers to feel involved even if they
can't get deep into the compiler.  Jonathan and Kenner probably could
do this, but that doesn't expand the project.

I responded to the students that this is an open-ended request, not a
summer internship.  We need a stable, reliable group of people, not
cycling through volunteers.

If we provide some more obvious contact information for the request, I
expect the account reviewers to weed out obvious SPAM accounts, e.g.,
an email address that looks like it belongs to a human being, and
possibly verifying that an email message is not a form letter if there
is room for a message.

Any thoughts about how to choose among the volunteers?

Thanks, David

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> If we solicited new volunteers from the GCC community to review GCC
>> Bugzilla account requests, can we easily and conveniently provide
>> those volunteers with privileges to create / approve GCC Bugzilla
>> accounts?  [...]
>
> Where are we with this process?  Are gcc volunteers identified & ready
> to start handling bugzilla account requests?
>
> - FChE

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi, David -


> [...]  If we provide some more obvious contact information for the
> request, I expect the account reviewers to weed out obvious SPAM
> accounts, e.g., an email address that looks like it belongs to a
> human being, and possibly verifying that an email message is not a
> form letter if there is room for a message.

No idea how to codify that sort of thing, but sure, if you like.

> Any thoughts about how to choose among the volunteers?

That's up to you.  Once you identify some volunteers, we can start
immediately, e.g. by having an overseer bounce incoming request emails
to them for handling.


- FChE

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
> Hi, David -
>
>
>> [...]  If we provide some more obvious contact information for the
>> request, I expect the account reviewers to weed out obvious SPAM
>> accounts, e.g., an email address that looks like it belongs to a
>> human being, and possibly verifying that an email message is not a
>> form letter if there is room for a message.
>
> No idea how to codify that sort of thing, but sure, if you like.

Any suggestions from others?

Thanks, David

Re: GCC Bugzilla accounts

[David Edelsohn]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@elastic.org> wrote:
> Hi, David -
>
>
>> [...]  If we provide some more obvious contact information for the
>> request, I expect the account reviewers to weed out obvious SPAM
>> accounts, e.g., an email address that looks like it belongs to a
>> human being, and possibly verifying that an email message is not a
>> form letter if there is room for a message.
>
> No idea how to codify that sort of thing, but sure, if you like.
>
>> Any thoughts about how to choose among the volunteers?
>
> That's up to you.  Once you identify some volunteers, we can start
> immediately, e.g. by having an overseer bounce incoming request emails
> to them for handling.

Does anyone else have any specific suggestions about how to implement
GCC Bugzilla account review and approval to utilize the volunteers?

Thanks, David