I looked at other parts of the workbench and now think I can come up with at least a partial patch.
I'll create a new branch to work in for you all to review. Craig > On Jul 13, 2021, at 8:12 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 22:33, Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com > <mailto: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 <mailto:c...@apache.org> Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
