Jump to content

Meta:Requests for CentralNotice adminship/Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE)[edit]

Hi, I'm working for the German Wikimedia chapter (together with Tim Eulitz and Gabriel Birke) on the annual fundraising campaign. I need CentralNotice adminship, ideally until I leave WMDE (for which there is no planned date in the foreseeable future). Thanks, Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE) (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose multiple issues even creating this request, including not following the directions for formatting the request or using a transclusion suggest unfamiliarity with technical syntax. — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Xaosflux, Corinna has just joined Wikimedia Deutschland a couple of days ago as a software developer and requires adminship on CentralNotice as part of her daily work routine in the technical fundraising team. Any unfamiliarities with MediaWiki syntax and CentralNotice will be cleared up in the coming weeks as part of our onboarding process where she will be paired with senior developers who know the ins and outs of the platform. Tim Eulitz (WMDE) (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tim Eulitz (WMDE): until trained perhaps she should have a code review process before directly implementing production changes to these global configs, wherein someone else from WMDE implements the changes. — xaosflux Talk 11:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Additionally to CI systems which catch technical errors in banners, our regular processes include code reviews of the banner code, manual tests and at least 2 people (developers, product manager, fundraising team) look at each banner and campaign setup in CentralNotice. Please be assured that we're aware of the impact these permissions have and that we're using them responsively. Do you still oppose the permission under these circumstances? --Gabriel Birke (WMDE) (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are already using a multi-party code review and deployment process, perhaps this person shouldn't be at the "commit" phase? I could certainly be in the minority here, although noone else has commented yet. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem here with granting a "work-related" requests even if the person is not experienced yet. One assumes that she will inevitably learn how to do it, or risk displeasing mighty WMDE :P I will grant this request if there are no other objections. --MF-W 17:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: this access requires 2FA on your account, are you able to comply with this requirement User:Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE)? — xaosflux Talk 00:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux:I will comply with the requirement of 2FA, yes --Corinna Hillebrand (WMDE) (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support As this is a work related one as stated by multiple WMDE staffers and MF-W. Although I fully understand Xaosflux's concerns (e.g. we've recently had a WMF employee revoked her mass message sender permissions) I think we're not in a position to outright deny an employee to do her work, and I trust the statement above that her supervisors/bosses will review her work before any banner gets activated. This does not means that we should be automatically granting this permission to whoever asks for it. There's a reason why CN access was unbundled from the sysop pack on Wikimedia wikis.—MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MF-Warburg: A few years ago, I would have agreed on that (that CNAdmin was a 'subset' of admin, which can reduce the risk of needless admins) - and to some parts, it is still true. The access to raw code that will be executed by readers on any project has since been identified as a higher risk activity, thus the new 2FA and removal of CNAdmin access from Admin over the last year. Admittedly, I'm not well versed in the nature of chapter employees, if this was a new WMF employee we wouldn't really be having this discussion. Would you expect that any chapter employee should be "shall issue" on this? — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any arguments here why it should not be done. So it is Done --MF-W 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]