-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Design offboarding process that hub admins can use to offboard their users #8
Comments
I am checking in on this issue. Has there been any progress on defining and implementing an offboarding process? The LEAP executive committee is reluctant to begin using our hub until an offboarding process is in place. So I would like to be able to provide an update on this.
I believe the scratch budgets are configured with a finite retention time for data. So that should not be necessary. |
No there has not been progress on this (for future reference, this issue would reflect any discussion or plans we have around this topic). Is there a specific set of concerns or questions that you need addressed? Looking at the list in the top comment, it seems like the only thing for which there is uncertainty is Is there something else that needs to be addressed and is causing hesitancy? |
The concern is with home directories. Some of the LEAP EC members are concerned about data accumulating from temporary users (e.g. bootcamp participants) which will generate an ever greater costs over the 5+ years of this project. This could be mitigated by enforcing quotas on home directories, but my understanding is that such quotas are not supported. Me personally emailing support for every offboarded users is not workable because:
Over in leap-stc/leap-stc.github.io#1, I am proposing a user policy for our hub. In it I say the following
Is it feasible to implement a cron job of some sort that will perform this deletion. Conversely, if you can provide some arguments and evidence that this issue (accumulating home-directory data) is not going to be a major cost or concern for our project, I can take that back to the EC. Without either such arguments or a technical solution to the problem, my colleagues will not feel comfortable moving forward with the hub. |
Yeah - it is a balance between "removing data quickly will piss off users that want it retained", and "removing data slowly will incur extra storage costs". We don't have a strict policy for this because different communities have different preferences. I think a reasonable approach is "if a user is explicitly deleted (by being removed from a GitHub team in this case) then it should be assumed their data will be deleted at the end of the month". @yuvipanda is that similar to how Berkeley does this? |
Berkeley's policy is that we archive user home directories to object storage if they haven't been used in 6 months, and users can manually request it back if they need to. The question is how to figure out 'removed from the project for 1 month', as that can be a bit tricky. How about the following criteria:
So that means part of offboarding would require them to hit the 'delete' button in the hub control panel (https://leap.2i2c.cloud/hub/admin) and anyone designated hub admin can do so, along with removing them from the github team. It also means that user data could be gone sooner than 1 month after they are removed - as it is 1 month since last login. Hence my preference for that to be 2 months. How does that sound, @rabernat? |
The other alternative is we just add a 'delete home directory' button that the admin can press as part of offboarding. So the offboarding process becomes:
|
I am totally fine with the 2 months! 👍 Can you clarify what the current "delete user" button actually does?
Can we find a way to avoid this manual step? My preference would be to have all membership managed via github, without having to have LEAP admins interact with the jupyterhub admin dashboard. |
@rabernat can we revisit in say 6 months or so wrt the manual step for decomissioning? Given the limited dev resources we currently have, and that I've to focus on 2i2c-org/infrastructure#1146 too, I'd prefer to do this iteratively than all in one go.
It does not right now, but maybe I can just hook this up and that should solve our problems?!
Yes they can.
This is actually an important quesiton I don't know the answer to atm. |
From @rabernat in 2i2c-org/infrastructure#1050 (comment):
When we offboard people, the following tasks need to be done:
We should design an interim offboarding process, as well as a self-service one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: