Alec Warner <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Ryan Phillips wrote:
> > This is a follow up to Mark's (halcy0n's) thread regarding QA Policies and
> > seemant's letter on herds, teams, and projects.
> > I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it. The
> > entire project has reached a level of being too political and trying to solve
> > certain problems in the wrong way.
> > Some of these problems are intermixed. Please consider them starting points
> > for discussion.
> > __Problem: Developer Growth__
> > I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to gentoo
> > should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that
> > helps the project move forward. If yes, then commit access should be given.
> > Adding a developer is usually quite a chore. There are numerous reasons why
> > this is a problem: having a live tree, taking a test, and not defining within
> > policy when a person could possibly get commit access.
> > All these reasons leave the project stagnant and lacking developers.
> > Why do people have to take a test? Is it to make sure they won't break the
> > tree? If it is, then the solution of a test is wrong. We do want to make sure
> > our developers understand gentoo, but I argue that the bugtracker is all we
> > need. As long as a person is adding value to gentoo and they have "proven"
> > themselves, then they *should* have commit access.
> > Perhaps its because of a live tree...
> I am relatively new, I lurked for quite some time on IRC ( a yearish )
> before finally becoming a dev, and the quiz was not particularly
> difficult, and the questions I didn't know, I asked my Mentor about. I
> think Mentors in general don't do a very good job ( not complaining
> about mine, mind, just in general ). I think in some cases, people are
> afraid to ask questions.
> We have the madly successful AT project, and a new Herd Tester project
> is in the works. I find both of these to be very good ideas and have
> aided in developer growth.
> As for your suggestion, with a "Live Tree" you cannot give random users
> who contribute "5 patches" commit access. Commiting comes with it an
> inherit responsibility. The following is an example only:
Ok, so maybe not 5 patches commit access.. How about an active
contributor for 6 months. I am throwing out ideas.
> I can go in right now and commit something that destroys anyone's box
> not running SElinux, just bump portage and then watch anyone that uses
> the new version destroy their machine. Part of this involves having a
> reputation based system. IMHO this is part of our own tree security.
> I have worked hard in the community to become a developer, and throwing
> that all away to ruin some boxes is silly. Sure once my changes are
> found they can be revert and a new portage thrown into the tree, but how
> many boxes were ruined first? What if my commit was unintentional?
So this is a problem with having a live tree.
> > __Problem: Live Tree__
> > Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not perfect and
> > requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my local tree within the
> > hour, but having a stable and unstable branch makes a lot of sense.
> > CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well...
> More details on how Branches and Tags solve the Live Tree problem would
> be good.
We could have a trunk/ and stable/ branch. The stable branch gets
exported to the rsync mirrors. Trunk/ is where we do the changes,
then merge to stable/ the changes we want. Should be pretty simple.
> > __Problem: QA Policies__
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/37544
> > It seems that the QA Policies are a product of a Live Tree, and going partially
> > non-live would solve the problems listed.
> > Everyone here is on the same team. There will be some breakages in the tree
> > and those can be dealt with. Like Seemant  said, herds are just groups of
> > like *packages*. The QA Policy is wrong when it says cross-team assistance; we
> > are all on the *same* team. The tree should naturally work. If it doesn't
> > then that is a bug for all of us.
> > Conflict resolution should not be a subproject. It should *not* exist at all.
> > Rules need to be in place to avoid conflict. Having some sort of voting
> > structure for all the developers (this doesn't mean requiring everyone to vote)
> > and not just the council or devrel makes a lot of sense for most things. If I
> > don't like how someone is acting within the project there should be a vote and
> > then see if that person is kicked out. No trial, no anything besides a vote.
> > And if I lose I have to deal with it. Either stay with the project, or find
> > something else. This solution just works.
> How many people are going to actively vote? What keeps "Me n' my
> Posse'" from just voting out random people we hate; assuming my Posse'
> is large enough to do so?
Thats fine. I replied to Alec's email about this.
We have to trust eachother to do the right thing.
> > Gentoo should be a fun environment. The previous paragraph should be taken as
> > a last resort.
> > __Problem: GLEPs__
> > I dislike GLEPs. Usually they sit on the website for a long long time not
> > doing anything. My vote (+1) is get rid of gleps and do everything by email
> > and a vote by the developers. AFAIK, the board votes on the GLEPs. Bad Idea.
> > It stifles things from getting done, and there is no ownership of who is going
> > to implement the idea.
> > A new idea proposal should be mailed to a mailinglist (-innovation?) with
> > details of timeline to completion, impact, and who is doing the implementation.
> > If it sounds like a good one, then there is a vote and things proceed. I like
> > progress.
> Uhhh Your E-mail basically states what a GLEP is, aside from the fact
> that it's on the web instead of being done via E-mail. The problem we
> currently have is:
> A) Many of the GLEPS require someone to do the work.
> B) No one has volunteered.
> Can you address these problems?
The GLEPs first have to get passed by the council. Wrong order of
operations. It shouldn't be their job; it's ours.
> > __Problem: Voting__
> > Gentoo has over 200 developers. People are generally against the voting idea,
> > but I'm not sure why. I think voting should work like this: if 30 developers
> > (or someother specified number) vote yes to an idea then that idea passes. It
> > doesn't require everyone to vote, be at home, be on the computer, and not be on
> > vacation.
> > The Apache Foundation already has a decent page regarding this:
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > The Apache Foundation has over 1300 developers; they must be doing something
> > right.
> > If someone misses a vote, too bad. You weren't there and progress has been
> > made. I equate this to leaving on vacation from work. My input is missed
> > while away, but decisions have been made in my absence.
> I could do with a shorter voting period where we vote on more things.
> I'd like to see at least a few issues voted on at least to see how many
> people actually show up and vote.
It's not whether people vote. They don't have to. Apache calls this