| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more |
| 4 |
> privileges |
| 5 |
> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers |
| 6 |
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them |
| 7 |
> commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is |
| 8 |
> supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP |
| 9 |
> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the |
| 10 |
> arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Some people don't want to be a dev. Some people can't commit the |
| 13 |
resources to maintain dev status. There's a lot more responsibility in |
| 14 |
being a dev then an AT, and some people don't want that. So, becoming an |
| 15 |
AT is a way they can contribute without having to worry about all the |
| 16 |
extra responsibilities involved with being a dev. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Homer Parker |
| 20 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead |
| 21 |
hparker@g.o |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives