And if it is the gitHub address, is it the 'primary' gitHub email address or a secondary one? GitHub has three email addresses for me, including 'seminalgenius@gmail.com' :) pfs On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 19:06, Paul Schaffner wrote:

I assume you mean the email address *as known to SourceForge* ? (I can never remember which of my two dozen email addresses was used for which account where.) Or do you mean email addresses *as known to GitHub* ? Which may well be different. pfs

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 15:41, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

Looks like we can achieve a happier SVN to Git conversion if we supply Git with a mapping between SourceForge usernames and proper names + email addresses in the form

hcayless = Hugh Cayless

I’ve started a spreadsheet with usernames who’ve committed to our repo at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6...

Can you all please pitch in to help fill it out?

Thanks, Hugh

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service PFSchaffner@umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service PFSchaffner@umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

I don't think it matters. It just needs to be a valid email address. Sent from my phone.

On Aug 12, 2015, at 19:39, Martin Holmes wrote:

Ah, sorry; I've been filling in that spreadsheet with the primary email I happen to know about for that person.

Cheers, Martin

...

On 15-08-12 04:06 PM, Paul Schaffner wrote: I assume you mean the email address *as known to SourceForge* ? (I can never remember which of my two dozen email addresses was used for which account where.) Or do you mean email addresses *as known to GitHub* ? Which may well be different. pfs

...

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 15:41, Hugh Cayless wrote: Looks like we can achieve a happier SVN to Git conversion if we supply Git with a mapping between SourceForge usernames and proper names + email addresses in the form

hcayless = Hugh Cayless

I’ve started a spreadsheet with usernames who’ve committed to our repo at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6...

Can you all please pitch in to help fill it out?

Thanks, Hugh

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

I'm assuming that this will just link up old FR/Bugs as new issues to the person's email address (and if it happens to be the same as their primary github one, maybe just work). Where does this list come from? It seems to be all the admin/developers/members? Except, actually, it seems to be missing some as well. How was it generated? Surely, if we're going to do this we need to do this for a lot more people... i.e. all those who have submitted tickets? We're not talking about giving these people direct push access or anything, right? While I'm in favour of more people committing, I'd suggest that those on council get direct push access, everyone else uses fork+pull request, or just submitting an issue. (For the Guidelines repo only. I think for Stylesheets and others that the group of committers can be larger.) I've filled in a bunch of the ones I knew. -James On 13/08/15 01:52, Hugh Cayless wrote:

Though, that said, if it was one you use on GitHub, it might be able to link you to your account.

Sent from my phone.

...

On Aug 12, 2015, at 19:39, Martin Holmes wrote:

Ah, sorry; I've been filling in that spreadsheet with the primary email I happen to know about for that person.

Cheers, Martin

...

On 15-08-12 04:06 PM, Paul Schaffner wrote: I assume you mean the email address *as known to SourceForge* ? (I can never remember which of my two dozen email addresses was used for which account where.) Or do you mean email addresses *as known to GitHub* ? Which may well be different. pfs

...

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 15:41, Hugh Cayless wrote: Looks like we can achieve a happier SVN to Git conversion if we supply Git with a mapping between SourceForge usernames and proper names + email addresses in the form

hcayless = Hugh Cayless

I’ve started a spreadsheet with usernames who’ve committed to our repo at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6...

Can you all please pitch in to help fill it out?

Thanks, Hugh

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

On 13/08/15 13:09, Hugh Cayless wrote:

This is different from the list Raff sent out to the TEI-L. That one was all people who’ve used the ticketing system. This is all people who’ve actually committed to the SVN repo. It’s got nothing to do with who gets access, just with preserving history. The standard SVN -> Git clone method doesn’t get names and addresses for people because SVN only keeps usernames.

Ah I see.

We should talk about policy with regard to push access. We haven’t historically automatically revoked such access from departed Council members. Would it be better to start doing so now, since we'll have an easier path to getting changes in from outside?

Actually that isn't strictly true. What we had done for awhile is use the three levels of Admin / Developer / Member on SF. If you are logged in as an Admin (kevin/hugh/james/lou/martin) and go to https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/admin/groups/ you can see the three groups. The reason we kept ex-council members (or others who had contributed) on 'Member' level access was that it meant that tickets could be assigned to them. What are the rules in github for who an issue can be assigned to? Only those who have push rights to the repository? Anyone on github? James

...

On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:58 , James Cummings wrote:

I'm assuming that this will just link up old FR/Bugs as new issues to the person's email address (and if it happens to be the same as their primary github one, maybe just work).

Where does this list come from? It seems to be all the admin/developers/members? Except, actually, it seems to be missing some as well. How was it generated?

Surely, if we're going to do this we need to do this for a lot more people... i.e. all those who have submitted tickets?

We're not talking about giving these people direct push access or anything, right? While I'm in favour of more people committing, I'd suggest that those on council get direct push access, everyone else uses fork+pull request, or just submitting an issue. (For the Guidelines repo only. I think for Stylesheets and others that the group of committers can be larger.)

I've filled in a bunch of the ones I knew.

-James

On 13/08/15 01:52, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

Though, that said, if it was one you use on GitHub, it might be able to link you to your account.

Sent from my phone.

...

On Aug 12, 2015, at 19:39, Martin Holmes wrote:

Ah, sorry; I've been filling in that spreadsheet with the primary email I happen to know about for that person.

Cheers, Martin

...

On 15-08-12 04:06 PM, Paul Schaffner wrote: I assume you mean the email address *as known to SourceForge* ? (I can never remember which of my two dozen email addresses was used for which account where.) Or do you mean email addresses *as known to GitHub* ? Which may well be different. pfs

...

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 15:41, Hugh Cayless wrote: Looks like we can achieve a happier SVN to Git conversion if we supply Git with a mapping between SourceForge usernames and proper names + email addresses in the form

hcayless = Hugh Cayless

I’ve started a spreadsheet with usernames who’ve committed to our repo at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6...

Can you all please pitch in to help fill it out?

Thanks, Hugh

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

I've checked the user list of the journal, but no sign of the remaining problem people in the spreadsheet. Cheers, Martin On 15-08-17 08:38 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

I believe you can set up as many groups as you like, with differing permission levels on repos, and that subsequently any of the members of those groups will be eligible to be assigned tickets. So we could in theory have a group who had read-only access to the repo and who would have to issue a pull request in order to complete an issue. In practice, I'd rather not make it too complex. On the other hand, if there's a "Council" group, people who aren't on Council probably ought not to be in it...

Should I add a "Contributors" group then, and we can talk about who should go into it and what they should be able to do?

As a followup, I've tracked down a number of the missing users, but there are still a couple I could use help with. I've added what clues I could find to the spreadsheet, if you'd be willing to take another look. I think we should just call the user "root" "TEI Council", and use the Council email address.

Thanks, Hugh

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:33 AM, James Cummings wrote:

...

On 13/08/15 13:09, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

This is different from the list Raff sent out to the TEI-L. That one was all people who’ve used the ticketing system. This is all people who’ve actually committed to the SVN repo. It’s got nothing to do with who gets access, just with preserving history. The standard SVN -> Git clone method doesn’t get names and addresses for people because SVN only keeps usernames.

Ah I see.

We should talk about policy with regard to push access. We haven’t

...

historically automatically revoked such access from departed Council members. Would it be better to start doing so now, since we'll have an easier path to getting changes in from outside?

Actually that isn't strictly true. What we had done for awhile is use the three levels of Admin / Developer / Member on SF. If you are logged in as an Admin (kevin/hugh/james/lou/martin) and go to https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/admin/groups/ you can see the three groups. The reason we kept ex-council members (or others who had contributed) on 'Member' level access was that it meant that tickets could be assigned to them.

What are the rules in github for who an issue can be assigned to? Only those who have push rights to the repository? Anyone on github?

James

...

On Aug 13, 2015, at 7:58 , James Cummings

...

wrote:

I'm assuming that this will just link up old FR/Bugs as new issues to the person's email address (and if it happens to be the same as their primary github one, maybe just work).

Where does this list come from? It seems to be all the admin/developers/members? Except, actually, it seems to be missing some as well. How was it generated?

Surely, if we're going to do this we need to do this for a lot more people... i.e. all those who have submitted tickets?

We're not talking about giving these people direct push access or anything, right? While I'm in favour of more people committing, I'd suggest that those on council get direct push access, everyone else uses fork+pull request, or just submitting an issue. (For the Guidelines repo only. I think for Stylesheets and others that the group of committers can be larger.)

I've filled in a bunch of the ones I knew.

-James

On 13/08/15 01:52, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

Though, that said, if it was one you use on GitHub, it might be able to link you to your account.

Sent from my phone.

On Aug 12, 2015, at 19:39, Martin Holmes wrote:

...

Ah, sorry; I've been filling in that spreadsheet with the primary email I happen to know about for that person.

Cheers, Martin

On 15-08-12 04:06 PM, Paul Schaffner wrote: > I assume you mean the email address *as known to SourceForge* ? > (I can never remember which of my two dozen email addresses was used > for which account where.) Or do you mean email addresses *as known > to GitHub* ? Which may well be different. pfs > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, at 15:41, Hugh Cayless wrote: >> Looks like we can achieve a happier SVN to Git conversion if we >> supply >> Git with a mapping between SourceForge usernames and proper names + >> email >> addresses in the form >> >> hcayless = Hugh Cayless >> >> I’ve started a spreadsheet with usernames who’ve committed to our >> repo at >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... >> < >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... >>> >> >> Can you all please pitch in to help fill it out? >> >> Thanks, >> Hugh >> >> >> -- >> tei-council mailing list >> tei-council@lists.tei-c.org >> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council >> >> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived >> > -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

I think this is probably a good idea. It also means GitHub traffic, like Stuart's recent pull request, will be archived and is that much less likely to be ignored. The only downside I see is that (as you note) we'll probably all want to go turn our own notifications off. I vote yes. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, James Cummings wrote:

On 17/08/15 16:38, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think we should just call the user "root" "TEI Council", and use the Council email address.

Following up on this, it seems a sensible idea to me that we should add a TEI Council user to github and use tei-council@lists.tei-c.org as its email address.

Does anyone have any objections before I just go an add that user? Before doing so we would need Kevin to add notifications@github.com (and if possible to whitelist domains, *@noreply.github.com) to the approved senders for the tei-council mailing list. Council list would then get any notifications to repositories we subscribed that user to. This seems like a useful thing, given we can always mute repositories in our personal accounts.

What are the problems I'm overlooking?

-James

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

Let's do this on a trial basis. I worry about increasing the automated traffic to the Council list; it might generate a lot of notifications that cause us all to pay less attention to the list in general. It'll make the archives a bit less reader-friendly too. Cheers, Martin On 15-08-20 04:27 AM, James Cummings wrote:

Ok, since at least one other person thinks it is a good idea, using our voting-by-apathy rules, I'll go ahead and do it if no one shouts in the next day. ;-)

-James

On 20/08/15 12:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think this is probably a good idea. It also means GitHub traffic, like Stuart's recent pull request, will be archived and is that much less likely to be ignored. The only downside I see is that (as you note) we'll probably all want to go turn our own notifications off.

I vote yes.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, James Cummings wrote:

...

On 17/08/15 16:38, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think we should just call the user "root" "TEI Council", and use the Council email address.

Following up on this, it seems a sensible idea to me that we should add a TEI Council user to github and use tei-council@lists.tei-c.org as its email address.

Does anyone have any objections before I just go an add that user? Before doing so we would need Kevin to add notifications@github.com (and if possible to whitelist domains, *@noreply.github.com) to the approved senders for the tei-council mailing list. Council list would then get any notifications to repositories we subscribed that user to. This seems like a useful thing, given we can always mute repositories in our personal accounts.

What are the problems I'm overlooking?

-James

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

Hello, could you guys help me figure out some of the GitHub user names from the spreadsheet that Hugh put together? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... I can't really get usernames if the user hid their email... Or maybe they are just not on GH? I'm looking for: brettbarney dpod epierazzo rwelzenb On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:53 AM, James Cummings wrote:

It is true that it will increase traffic on the list (though continual prods to be looking at github might be a good thing...) I count about 8 notifications I've received this month (slow month though...). Obvious if we were using github fulltime for both Stylesheets (etc.), and Guidelines then traffic would be that much higher.

I'm not sure the archives are currently reader-friendly, but I take your point that it 'pollutes' them with process-related information.

To get the ball rolling I've set up a user TEITechnicalCouncil but not yet subscribed it to repositories or added it to the TEIC organisation. (I'm waiting to hear back from Kevin about whether the right email addresses can be added to the mailing list first.) When I change its email to be the mailing list (tomorrow if no complaints) then I'll probably have a verification email sent through.

If we decide it is too much notification then we can reduce those using github's own controls. If we decide it is just not working we can always delete the github account. ;-)

-James

On 20/08/15 13:34, Martin Holmes wrote:

...

Let's do this on a trial basis. I worry about increasing the automated traffic to the Council list; it might generate a lot of notifications that cause us all to pay less attention to the list in general. It'll make the archives a bit less reader-friendly too.

Cheers, Martin

On 15-08-20 04:27 AM, James Cummings wrote:

...

Ok, since at least one other person thinks it is a good idea, using our voting-by-apathy rules, I'll go ahead and do it if no one shouts in the next day. ;-)

-James

On 20/08/15 12:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think this is probably a good idea. It also means GitHub traffic, like Stuart's recent pull request, will be archived and is that much less likely to be ignored. The only downside I see is that (as you note) we'll probably all want to go turn our own notifications off.

I vote yes.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, James Cummings wrote:

On 17/08/15 16:38, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think we should just call the user "root" "TEI Council", and use the

...

Council email address.

Following up on this, it seems a sensible idea to me that we should add a TEI Council user to github and use tei-council@lists.tei-c.org as its email address.

Does anyone have any objections before I just go an add that user? Before doing so we would need Kevin to add notifications@github.com (and if possible to whitelist domains, *@noreply.github.com) to the approved senders for the tei-council mailing list. Council list would then get any notifications to repositories we subscribed that user to. This seems like a useful thing, given we can always mute repositories in our personal accounts.

What are the problems I'm overlooking?

-James

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

No, they only have closed ones. Oh well. If they don't have a GitHub account the issues will get assigned to sf_user_THEIR-SF-USER On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

A quick search doesn’t turn up anything…they may well just not have GitHub accounts. Do they have active tickets assigned to them?

...

On Aug 20, 2015, at 12:30 , Raffaele Viglianti < raffaeleviglianti@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

could you guys help me figure out some of the GitHub user names from the spreadsheet that Hugh put together?

...

I can't really get usernames if the user hid their email... Or maybe they are just not on GH?

I'm looking for: brettbarney dpod epierazzo rwelzenb

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:53 AM, James Cummings < James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

...

It is true that it will increase traffic on the list (though continual prods to be looking at github might be a good thing...) I count about 8 notifications I've received this month (slow month though...). Obvious

if

...

we were using github fulltime for both Stylesheets (etc.), and Guidelines then traffic would be that much higher.

I'm not sure the archives are currently reader-friendly, but I take your point that it 'pollutes' them with process-related information.

To get the ball rolling I've set up a user TEITechnicalCouncil but not yet subscribed it to repositories or added it to the TEIC organisation. (I'm waiting to hear back from Kevin about whether the right email addresses can be added to the mailing list first.) When I change its email to be the mailing list (tomorrow if no complaints) then I'll probably have a verification email sent through.

If we decide it is too much notification then we can reduce those using github's own controls. If we decide it is just not working we can always delete the github account. ;-)

-James

On 20/08/15 13:34, Martin Holmes wrote:

...

Let's do this on a trial basis. I worry about increasing the automated traffic to the Council list; it might generate a lot of notifications

...

...

...

cause us all to pay less attention to the list in general. It'll make

...

...

...

archives a bit less reader-friendly too.

Cheers, Martin

On 15-08-20 04:27 AM, James Cummings wrote:

...

Ok, since at least one other person thinks it is a good idea, using

our

...

voting-by-apathy rules, I'll go ahead and do it if no one shouts in

...

...

...

...

next day. ;-)

-James

On 20/08/15 12:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I think this is probably a good idea. It also means GitHub traffic,

...

...

...

...

...

Stuart's recent pull request, will be archived and is that much less likely to be ignored. The only downside I see is that (as you note) we'll probably all want to go turn our own notifications off.

I vote yes.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:07 AM, James Cummings wrote:

On 17/08/15 16:38, Hugh Cayless wrote: > > I think we should just call the user "root" "TEI Council", and use

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N8hIBphezGsNB0SvEx7wSamyshNrszeNrlm6... that the the like the

...

...

...

...

...

>> Council email address. >> >> Following up on this, it seems a sensible idea to me that we should > add a > TEI Council user to github and use tei-council@lists.tei-c.org as its > email address. > > Does anyone have any objections before I just go an add that user? > Before > doing so we would need Kevin to add notifications@github.com (and if > possible to whitelist domains, *@noreply.github.com) to the approved > senders for the tei-council mailing list. Council list would then > get any > notifications to repositories we subscribed that user to. This seems > like a > useful thing, given we can always mute repositories in our personal > accounts. > > What are the problems I'm overlooking? > > -James > > > -- > Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, > University of Oxford > >

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived