Meta:Requests for comment/Create a 2FA tester local meta usergroup

The following request for comments is closed. Consensus not to enact. Vermont (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

edit

Per Meta:Requests_for_comment/Enable_2FA_on_meta_for_all_users and a short discussion on babel which some users feedback to me that RFC is more appropriate so here we are.

The group to be set up is 2FA Tester group. Group rights are oauth-enable . The propose place of granting of the rights is still SRGP RFH. Initially there will be a message at SRGP to redirect these requests to RFH. All meta sysops and stewards will be given access to grant /revoke the rights.

As of the global group, it can be either depreciated / remain but not granted. The 1st option will reduce confusion, but existing 2FA testers need to switch over and we need to do some work locally / globally. For 2nd option, there may be some confusion but easier in administering.

The scope of this RFC is then 2 parts

  1. Support this usergroup / oppose this usergroup
  2. Depreciate the global group / having it alongside

Hope for your feedback and thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

There would be no need to bother SRGP for this, stewards don't need to act when local volunteers can, so using RFH should suffice. — xaosflux Talk 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: The reason why I say SRGP is that SRGP have better record keeping as well as the fact that I don't want too much tethering problem of users don't know where to request the right. I don't mind RFH too.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only record keeping this should need would be a link in the rights log, that can be done with PermaLinks. At least initially we could put a link on SRGP to RFH for anyone following old links. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, shall change it accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]