Comment 6 for bug 8586

(In reply to comment #5)
> Why not the 'adm' group which already exists?

Why not what I originally suggested, the group that alread exists called "sudo"?
 It makes intuitive sense to me that the users allowed to sudo belong to the
"sudo" group, in fact that is the behaviour I expected to occur when I first
tried adding users to the sudo group in the first place.