1 |
On 22.7.2022 18.17, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Who decides which contributor gets access to which package? |
4 |
|
5 |
I imagine the person / project who has been proxying them until that |
6 |
point. Even if the contributor gets a special access to a single |
7 |
package, you'd still have a @gentoo.org maintainer proxying - if there's |
8 |
an increasing amount of bug reports and poor work after commit access is |
9 |
given, this proxy sees it and can request removal of access and start |
10 |
teaching the contributor through reviews again. I'm aware there could be |
11 |
some lazy people requesting it immediately, but let's think of the |
12 |
positives and not paint it black quite yet. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> Is there a flow to eventually onboard contributors as developers? |
16 |
|
17 |
It'd help combined with my 2nd RFC of the original post, yes. But I |
18 |
believe some contributors would be fine with this arrangement too, where |
19 |
they get to keep package(s) of their interest in a good condition |
20 |
without having to tackle the quiz. |
21 |
|
22 |
Anyway I only see positives for someone on the road of becoming a |
23 |
developer with this approach. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
> Why are the contributors not developers themselves, just with scoped |
27 |
> ::gentoo access? |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Remind me again, didn't we do this with arch testers historically? And |
31 |
how did that work out? (This isn't a negative tone, genuinely asking |
32 |
YOUR perspective) |
33 |
|
34 |
I wouldn't mind this at all, but in a way I guess we'll want to identify |
35 |
people who a) have passed the quiz & interview, b) has full tree access. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- juippis |