Re:How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha
by lawl on Friday October 08, 2021 @09:03AM
(#28798774)
> how do you restrict that, if the admin has total control over a project?
This isn't a new problem, how do you prevent a rougue admin from kicking all other admins and taking over. The simplest and a pretty effective solution is to have another privilege level: Founder. Of which there can only be one, and admins can do everything, except strip the founder of their rights. (And/or transfer the repo, if the founder can't easily undo that.)
Re:How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha
by ethbr0 on Friday October 08, 2021 @01:15PM
(#28801584)
Why not just require admin consensus for privileged actions?
E.g. removing other admins, or other permissions-related actions like the re-orging in question
If your problem case is "one rogue admin," having multiple admins and requiring consensus seems an easy fix.
Re:How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha
by robmen on Friday October 08, 2021 @01:45PM
(#28801955)
You should raise that feature request with GitHub. It's a good idea.
Re:How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha
by lmm on Sunday October 10, 2021 @10:34PM
(#28824028)
> The admin of one project moved it somewhere else - how do you restrict that, if the admin has total control over a project?
Even an admin shouldn't be able to avoid other admins getting notified and seeing an audit log of what they've done.
Are there improvements that could be done to allow these bots to perform with less rights? That would be something maybe github could tackle but it's not the worst thing about this problem.