On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 22:33, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sebb, > > > On Jul 8, 2021, at 4:51 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> One entry point is the secretary workbench where ICLAs are recorded. I > >> believe that we need to add three fields to the ICLA form for the LDAP > >> fields: family first, given name, and family name. > > > > I agree about given name and family name. > > The field 'family first' is unnecessary and confusing. > > I'm referring here specifically to the secretary workbench ICLA screen, not > the ICLA.pdf form. The "[x] Family First" is on the ICLA form, and should be > shown on the ICLA screen as a yes/no box that can be edited if secretary > decides that it is incorrect (or an old form that doesn't include it). > > > >> By default, if the requested id is filled, the given name should be the > >> (family first)? cn[0] : cn[-1] > >> And the sn should be (family first)? cn[-1] : cn[0] > > > > We should not try to parse the Public Name; instead family name should > > be required on the ICLA. > > The LDAP fields are an artifact of how we choose to handle things in infra > and have nothing to do with the legal document. We might choose in future to > put stuff into a database instead of LDAP and get rid of the cn, sn, > givenName artifacts entirely. > > But secretary still needs to fill the LDAP fields from information on the > ICLA and as it is today, there just is not enough information to do it. But > with the Family First flag, we have enough information to derive the sn and > givenName from the Public name.
The Family first flag gives enough information to make a guess at the sn and givenName. It does not guarantee these will be derived correctly, and there is no guarantee that the person has understood whether they need to check the box or not. However the latest proposed wording is at least easier to understand. > So the ICLA screen needs to add the Family First flag, the derived (editable > by Secretary) sn and givenName fields. These will be needed only for account > creation so they should be listed below the "requested Apache id" part of the > screen. We don't *need* the flag. We could ask for family name and givenName instead. Or we could guess them. Or we could set the family name to a fixed value and omit the givenName. That would satisfy the LDAP schema and AFAICT would not affect anything that LDAP is used for. If it were important to have accurate sn and givenName I would have expected to see complaints that the incorrect values are causing problems. > Regards, > Craig > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org >
