"foreman team" as owner of code, which contact data to use?

Development
1

Ohai,

I am currently playing with some Python code that should be moved under the Foreman umbrella as soon it’s readier. As part of the metadata, there is an author and email fields that want to be filled out. I wanted to set it to “The Foreman Team”, but then realized the “team” does not really have an email address at the moment.

Some of our gems (like remote_execution) use "foreman-dev@googlegroups.com", but that is not really a list anymore and I’d prefer not to pester @Gwmngilfen with too many moderation requests if there is ever mail to that alias.

Now the question arises how we should handle this in future?

  1. we could just say there is no such thing as “the foreman team” and the authors should enter their names/mail everywhere
  2. we create a mail alias for such things on @theforeman.org and let it just forward mails to a certain list of people
  3. we create a group here on discourse and allow some special alias @community.theforeman.org to reach that group

discuss away!
Evgeni

2

Is this for the public aspect of it or for a private account on pypi to publish things, similar to our rubygems account.

3

the metadata is not tied to an account (I think), so we could have a private account, and the archive of that alias public.

but I don’t see a problem with it being private completely.

4

It’s a good thing to have a pypi account that’s not tied to a single developer and could also be used in automation.

Besides that I think we can list a @community.theforeman.org address in the public metadata. We should look if we can do the same for rubygems.

5

My assumption is that this is for others to email in when there are issues, notifications, etc. Assuming we want something that isn’t person-specific, so in your list:

  1. (isn’t applicable)
  2. I think Ohad can only forward mail to a single address, we were looking at this a while back - @ohadlevy can you confirm?
  3. Obviously my favourite :stuck_out_tongue:. Unlike the public boards, this won’t require an account to email (I think, I did some brief tests, but we should be able to confirm easily), and is therefore ok for automated systems to send mail to.
  4. (extra option) Create a mailing list, old-school :slight_smile: - the security process already uses this, after all.

For option 3, we could assign an address to the “core” team (I expect the “developers” team to get pretty large…), or create a new group for this (groups can also be private, if need be). Emails to that address would result in a private message containing all members of the group, and any reply would go to all the other members, so it’s easy to tell everyone “I’m dealing with this”.

Pros - saves us setting up additional infra to handle this, and is super-flexible in who gets notifications (especially when we need to change that list later on). Cons - dependant on Discourse, but it’s fairly important to us anyway. I think it’s worth a trial?

6

yeah, I don’t particularly like to have a dependency on discourse, but the same applies to google groups too, and discourse is at least self-hosted.

so unless we can have an “own” mailing"list" (option 2), I’d prefer 3 over 4.

7

thats correct - I can create forwarding rules on @theforeman.org