[Qgis-psc] QGIS issue-tracker: only osgeo-login or also QGIS-local logins?

Fri Aug 25 15:13:53 PDT 2017

Hi,
I agree with Harrissou's analysis. As a Mantra granter, I fell 3 times in
that caveat asking people to show a public affiliation, with them answering
they already published some bug reports in QGIS and they don't understand
why we bother them for OSGEO.

So it's like us forking of OSGEO, which is a move I don't like, without
talking of the mess it is progressively making if we want to merge back to
LDAP only, having with many users no register at OSGEO.

Mantra request's rely on the shoulder of few but very active ones (not me)
like Sandro, Matteus or  more recently Even. I agree this is suboptimal in
terms of human ressources, but I start finding it a "human" entry door to
OSGEO world. Of course, it's not always easy to be "welcoming" facing some
strange queries, but most users seem happy.
Mean answer delay is quite fast, say minutes, rarely more than a few
hours.  I am myself rarely fast enough to give a mantra. I try to answer
all requests coming from France, in the idea to create relationships for
future members of the QGIS user group . Having more volunteers will be more
than welcome!

And yes, I also feel that the bottleneck is right now in testing, cleaning
up bug requests, reviewing Pull Requests, doing the bugfix effort more than
having more reporters.

Régis

2017-08-25 23:04 GMT+02:00 DelazJ <delazj at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Do we have any metrics on the people that went away from issue reporting
> because of the mantra mechanism? Any idea if the issues those people didn't
> report have not been reported by others, later? Would they be really active
> reporters (with feedbacks), once they have made their report if they are
> not enough patient for a mantra request (note that I didn't request any and
> actually don't how the procedure is, so I might be underestimating the
> hassle for the reporter, but anyway...)?
> I have no answer for these questions and I assume no one has. But what I
> know is:
> - there are many issues not yet fixed in Redmine, so unfortunately we are
> not lacking issue reports
> - QGIS is part of the OSGeo ecosystem and nowadays, one of their
> locomotives. Thus imho we have some kind of responsibility to teach the
> users, let them know that there's a community of software and philosophy
> beyond QGIS. And the unique osgeo login is a nice way. The only thing is
> that the osgeo subscription page is a bit not friendly but I hope this will
> change with the website rebranding.
>
> About mantras I recall some message asking for more volunteers to help. Do
> people from QGIS join the team? (I didn't personally). Was the delay to
> deliver the mantra still long?
>
> For what it's worth, my vote is to keep QGIS issue report tied to OSGeo by
> using only the unique login and I agree the unique login behavior deserves
> to be documented in both sites. But I'm not a QGIS Developer, hence may not
> realize how the mantra complicates things for some of us but from a user
> perspective, single ID is simply practical, and philosophically
> instructive...
>
> my 0.2 cts,
> Harrissou
> Envoyé depuis mon HTC
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> De : "Nyall Dawson" <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
> Pour : "Matthias Kuhn" <matthias at opengis.ch>
> Cc : "qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org" <qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> Objet : [Qgis-psc] QGIS issue-tracker: only osgeo-login or also QGIS-local
> logins?
> Date : ven., août 25, 2017 19:05
>
>
> On 25 August 2017 at 23:20, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote:
> > I am in favor of allowing to create a local QGIS account. I really like
> > the osgeo single-sign-on idea but the current situation with the mantra
> > is sub-optimal. We want users to be able to report issues, putting extra
> > obstacles into their way will not improve issue report quality.
>
> +1
>
> To me the removal of the mantra dependence was the best part of the
> redmine upgrade.
>
> Nyall
>
> >
> > I think what's missing currently is a paragraph or two that explain this
> > on the registration page to allow users making an informed decision.
> >
> > And of course the possibility to login with a github account ;)
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> > On 08/25/2017 01:18 PM, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
> >>
> >> According to Juergen we already discussed, so if so ignore me.
> >>
> >> Currently users can create a (local) user account in our issues/Redmine
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> In my view, we should only accept osgeo-ldap accounts (which are harder
> >> to get: you need a mantra etc). But as a bonus users can create issues
> >> for all osgeo-projects (and have one 'single-sign-on') .
> >>
> >> What is the general opinion about this?
> >>
> >> - accept local accounts or not?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Richard Duivenvoorde
> >>
> >> PS currently we have the potential problem, that users create both a
> >> local and a ldap user account and mix those up (or can impersonate
> >> somebody in case somebody else is able to create a QGIS local account
> >> after I created a ldap account, but BEFORE I logged in in
> issues.qgis.org)
> >> PS2 we have 3-6 osgeo/mantra requests per day at Osgeo/SAC and 6-10 new
> >> local users at issues.qgis.org. ALL of them are then
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Qgis-psc mailing list
> >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20170826/1a1f8297/attachment.html>