| 1 |
On 06/04/14 20:33, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/06/2014 11:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 06/04/14 15:47, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> Andreas K. Huettel: |
| 6 |
> >>> 5) The council encourages teams maintaining central parts of Gentoo |
| 7 |
> >>> to accept new developers as team members and teach them the |
| 8 |
> >>> required knowledge and intricacies. We consider this important to |
| 9 |
> >>> ensure long-term continuity and increase the bus factor in critical |
| 10 |
> >>> areas. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> Or don't accept them as team members in the first place, which is |
| 14 |
> >> perfectly fine if you can still contribute as a non-team member. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > I agree, new developers shouldn't be allowed in the QA team, there |
| 17 |
> > should be some 5 year limit |
| 18 |
> > at least as safe kludge to avoid disrespect like this: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > #gentoo-qa, yesterday: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > 21:37 <@Zero_Chaos> floppym: honestly there are a few "senior" gentoo |
| 23 |
> > developers which could be shot in the head for all I care. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I fully stand by my statements. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Makes me sad. I can't see how you could ever manage to communicate with |
| 28 |
some people you have |
| 29 |
to communicate as in your role in the in QA team. |
| 30 |
It requires some so called "customer service" skills, neutrality, |
| 31 |
following estabilished policies instead |
| 32 |
of making up your own and trying to enforce those made up ones with |
| 33 |
harsh language. |
| 34 |
You should reconsider if you are the best fit for the team, if you want |
| 35 |
best for Gentoo, and do the right |
| 36 |
thing, and resign from the team, and work on other areas where you don't |
| 37 |
need to communicate so much with others. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> There are a few senior developers who |
| 40 |
> feel they can do whatever they like. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I haven't seen any, could be you be more specific? Yes, I've seen some |
| 43 |
older developers, including |
| 44 |
myself, keeping their old workflow, but that's hardly "do whatever they |
| 45 |
like" |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> They ignore policy, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I haven't seen any, could you be more specific what policies have been |
| 50 |
violated, and by whom? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> revert things others have done to improve gentoo, |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Again, I haven't seen anything like this, yes, there has been some |
| 55 |
reverts (including by myself), but |
| 56 |
nothing that has "improved gentoo" has been reverted. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> or otherwise make major changes without consulting anyone. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
If you are referring to our last issue, re: the new virtuals, I've |
| 61 |
already proofed the issue has been |
| 62 |
discussed in the past and even documented down in the wiki. It's what |
| 63 |
the council voted for when |
| 64 |
they allowed use of subslots in gentoo-x86. |
| 65 |
If this is not what you meant, again, could you be more specific what |
| 66 |
and whom you mean? |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
- Samuli |
Archives