1 |
05.02.2014 14:58, justin пишет: |
2 |
> On 05/02/14 11:49, Sergey Popov wrote: |
3 |
>> 04.02.2014 23:47, Donnie Berkholz пишет: |
4 |
>>> On 18:57 Wed 29 Jan , justin wrote: |
5 |
>>>> He is joining us as staffer (for now, let's see what the future brings) |
6 |
>>>> to work on portage (the PM) development, where he already contributed code. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> Anyone else think it ironic that we call actual developers "staffers" |
9 |
>>> while ebuild maintainers qualify as "developers"? |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> Note that I am arguing more for classifying the former as the latter |
12 |
>>> than vice versa. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> I do not think so. Staffer can be designer, doc translator etc. Ebuild |
16 |
>> maintainance requires programming skill(at basic level, yes, but still). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Donnie is right here. Giving people appropriate titles is a motivation |
19 |
> factor (see your footer gathering "lead" titles). So we should _not_ |
20 |
> call someone who is hacking our PM "staffer" but rather "developer". And |
21 |
> call a translator, designer, package maintainer... by its title. |
22 |
> I am called developer, but I am actually a package maintainer. This is |
23 |
> what my expertise is not coding. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The only question do we need to have the developer/staffer title |
26 |
> discrimination for know who has tree access or not. And I would say no, |
27 |
> as there is nothing in the official infrastructure like LDAP telling us |
28 |
> that. |
29 |
|
30 |
Good point, agreed. PM developer should not be called 'staffer' even he |
31 |
has not access to gx86 - he just may not do ebuilds :-) |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
35 |
Gentoo developer |
36 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
37 |
Gentoo Qt project lead |
38 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |