| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:39:01PM -0800, Robert Cole wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hmm so I guess the message did go through... Sorry for the dupe going through. |
| 3 |
> Got a rejected msg. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> How is one suppose to "prove" themselves if they aren't allowed to contribute? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Whoa, there must be a major misunderstanding here. Nobody said you |
| 9 |
aren't allowed to contribute. What you aren't allowed to have is |
| 10 |
official developer status without having proven yourself. See below. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I've seen several things sit in bugs.gentoo.org with working ebuilds attached |
| 13 |
> from other "unapproved" devs that never make it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So from what I've seen: |
| 16 |
> Volunteer + Ebuild + Willingness to maintain = rejection |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Okay, let me explain a little bit about how the recruitment process |
| 19 |
works. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
A few cases: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
One, a developer sponsors someone as a new developer. They offer to act |
| 24 |
as mentor throughout the training period and beyond, and they're |
| 25 |
personally responsible for that developer. This is the usual case. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Two, a high-profile package is unmaintained and recruiters search for |
| 28 |
people with a history of contributions who have shown they can handle it |
| 29 |
and are trustworthy. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Three, someone has a history of contributions, especially on Bugzilla, |
| 32 |
and has shown they can do high-quality, reliable work. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I _won't_ just take someone at their word that they're capable of doing |
| 35 |
something. Would you put somebody with a blank resume in a critical |
| 36 |
position? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Additionally, there are nearly 6,000 individual packages in the tree at |
| 39 |
last count. Most of these are relatively trivial; they just aren't |
| 40 |
critical applications and do not require their own developer. For |
| 41 |
example, if you wanted to maintain one or two image viewers, the |
| 42 |
benefits (a maintainer for two low profile packages that likely do not |
| 43 |
require very much attention) do not outweigh the risks (another |
| 44 |
developer who's a potential security risk) in my view. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
You would be cautious too if there were an estimated quarter of a |
| 47 |
million systems at stake. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Does any of this mean that people are shut out from contributing? Not at |
| 50 |
all. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 54 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives