1 |
Thanks hparker for letting me know about this part of the thread and a |
2 |
call for opinions from ATs. |
3 |
|
4 |
Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
5 |
> The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a |
6 |
> specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve |
7 |
> the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify |
8 |
> working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform |
9 |
> tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch |
10 |
> shape. |
11 |
|
12 |
And this is certainly still the most important part of the whole thing. |
13 |
|
14 |
> The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in |
15 |
> "the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users. |
16 |
|
17 |
Until recently I may have agreed with that sentiment, but honestly I can |
18 |
now see several ways that the email address would help to cut down |
19 |
confusion and make the whole operation less of a PITA. |
20 |
|
21 |
1. The identification of ATs in b.g.o by an @g.o address allows devs |
22 |
and other ATs to quickly identify who is and is not a 'trusted' source |
23 |
of information. This may not seem challenging now, but as the number of |
24 |
ATs increases I fear it will become so. We currently have 20 active ATs |
25 |
with amd64 and I know there's at least one more in the pipe right now -- |
26 |
it gets hard to remember everyone. |
27 |
|
28 |
2. As (I would like to think) part of our responsibility is to answer |
29 |
questions on the IRC channels, as is the case with the devs, it makes it |
30 |
easier from a user standpoint to contact one of us by email working on |
31 |
the assumption that our address is nick@g.o as opposed to everyone |
32 |
asking for the information over and over again. |
33 |
|
34 |
> One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they |
35 |
> have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put |
36 |
> in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or |
37 |
> even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and |
38 |
> such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them |
39 |
> *can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway. |
40 |
|
41 |
Very true. |
42 |
|
43 |
> That sentiment is reflected in using a subdomain address, and from what we |
44 |
> heard no tester had any problems with this (the e-mail addy is far less |
45 |
> important than the rest of the GLEP). |
46 |
|
47 |
(Admittedly, I joined the ranks of the ATs after the inital GLEP and |
48 |
council meeting) |
49 |
|
50 |
I have a problem with the subdomain -- actually a few. Most of my |
51 |
issues here are the same as have been presented earlier in the thread |
52 |
dealing mainly with the extensibility of the whole thing. As kurt |
53 |
pointed out, what happens when someone occupies multiple roles? Do we |
54 |
just provide every email address and alias ourselves like crazy? |
55 |
|
56 |
For those ATs that are going to become devs, it seems especially foolish |
57 |
as we would be given one address, which will be used all over b.g.o, |
58 |
only to have to switch to another one within a period of a couple of |
59 |
months thereby building up a cruft of aliases which will have to |
60 |
realistically remain as long as we stay with the organization. I mean, |
61 |
it's obviously not my job to maintain that, but it doesn't seem very |
62 |
forward-thinking. |
63 |
|
64 |
Also, when I'm not doing my research for school or working on Gentoo |
65 |
stuff I work for a great company in Canada called Canadian Tire. If I |
66 |
want to email someone in the mailroom at our head office, I send an |
67 |
email to name@×××××××.com; but here's the kicker, if I want to email the |
68 |
CEO, I send an email to name@×××××××.com. |
69 |
|
70 |
But wait you say! Canadian Tire is a corporation and people are paid to |
71 |
work directly for the company and therefore everyones' email should be |
72 |
@cantire.com. Well, what about the United Way - one of the biggest |
73 |
volunteer organizations in the world (and one I spent many years with). |
74 |
Turns out that you can reach anyone there at name@×××××××××.ca, |
75 |
manager or secretary or Jo Blo community representative alike. |
76 |
|
77 |
My point here being that I have a problem with designs that set an |
78 |
overlord/underling pattern in place. I feel that it represents the |
79 |
organization as a whole badly. Somehow I had this belief that if we all |
80 |
do work directly for gentoo, then why wouldn't we just be nick@g.o? |
81 |
|
82 |
> One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has |
83 |
> passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before |
84 |
> read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes |
85 |
> to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should |
86 |
> be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a |
87 |
> "Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation |
88 |
> board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for |
89 |
> being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their |
90 |
> work. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment |
93 |
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? |
94 |
|
95 |
No matter what comes of all this (we do or do not get ro cvs, same for |
96 |
emails) I'm going to continue to do my work. I mean, my motivation for |
97 |
joining the organization in the first place has not changed -- I want to |
98 |
give back to gentoo because I have enjoyed using it all these years and |
99 |
it is only through the RSI of the volunteers that it continues to get |
100 |
better and better all the time. |
101 |
|
102 |
That said, the ro cvs is but a tool to help in our work, and I'm a big |
103 |
fan of tools to make jobs faster and easier. Email addresses are both a |
104 |
tool and a point of recognition and in accordance have a two-fold benefit. |
105 |
|
106 |
> |
107 |
> Wkr, |
108 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
109 |
> |
110 |
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good |
111 |
> with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between |
112 |
> people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made |
113 |
> an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal |
114 |
> and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers". |
115 |
|
116 |
Well, it has certainly shown me a darker side of the inside of Gentoo. |
117 |
Plus, it's not all that comforting when people debate about your |
118 |
existence. I worked about 10 hours this week on Gentoo stuff (it's all |
119 |
the time I could afford); not stuff for me -- I couldn't personally care |
120 |
at all if xcb or rman work on amd64 as they're applications that I don't |
121 |
have a particular use for, but I'm more than happy to put in the time to |
122 |
improve our arch support ... because it's. my. job. Then to be told |
123 |
that few people actually want to recognize that work is a little |
124 |
disheartening. |
125 |
|
126 |
Scott Stoddard |
127 |
deltacow@×××××××××.something |
128 |
-- |
129 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |