On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, at 12:52 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: > On 09/12/2015 13:16, Tony Stevenson wrote: > > Francesco, > > > > As I said in HipChat, I'd love to be able to say that we can do this. > > But the fact is right now infra are tied up for at least 6 months. > > > > I think the best way to gain any traction on this is for the Syncope PMC > > to stand up a PoC that replaces 1 (or more) of the components used. > > As anticipated via HipChat, this is actually the deep sense of my > proposal, e.g. the direct engagement of Syncope PMC - not only, > actually, but anyone interested - for supporting the infra team. > > A PoC sounds like a straight, concrete and limited way to start > approaching IdM at ASF with Syncope. > > > i.e. these might include: > > > > - https://id.apache.org (The end-user part of it) > > - acreq - The user account request workflow > > - Identity Management as a whole. > > - PMC karma management > > > > I will be more than happy to help guide the PMC, and give you an ASF VM > > on which you can stand up your PoC, and guide you on the business logic > > already in place for any of these tools. > > That's good - IMO we need: > > 1. a place where to ask for information, provide feedback, etc. (shall > we keep crossposting infra@ and dev@syncope?)
Keep infra@ in the loop. If we start crossing into anything sensitive we will move that part of the thread to a more sensible location. > 2. VM Open a JIRA issue for this, and one can be provisioned for you. > 3. SCM Ideally you'd work by submitting patches against the infrastructure-puppet repo for the deployment and config. > 4. (possibly) some issue tracker (not necessarily JIRA, something > simpler would fit the job as well) JIRA is the infra preference as in we use that today. I'd just use the JIRA project and move on. Less hassle. > 5. (nice to have) some wiki (not necessarily Confluence, something > simpler would fit the job as well) Again, you can use the infra space on cwiki. > > For a long time we have tried to manage identity, or some cut-down > > version of it, solely via LDAP. Then we added id.apache.org, and then > > acreq was added. They were all really disjointed efforts. If we can > > bring all this under one roof, and make it usable I think it will be a > > win. > > > > The idea of a PoC is to be able to demonstrate that Syncope could > > basically be dropped in, and replace one of these components. > > > > We'd also want some decent handover and/or training from the Syncope > > community. I'm not sure we'd accept it if the community wanted to > > support it on it's own, because the sad fact is people move on, and we > > would be left with a critical piece of the jigsaw remaining unsupported. > > Agree on this last point as well: I'd suggest to identify someone from > the infra team which could follow activities, provide inputs, etc since > the beginning.
