| 1 |
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:27:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:09:11 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Hello, developers. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I have the pleasure |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
:? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > to announce that we have formed a new Reviewers |
| 14 |
> > team [1] for Gentoo. The team is going to assemble developers |
| 15 |
> > willing to perform ebuild reviews and help contributors improve |
| 16 |
> > their ebuild skills. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > The main goal of the team is to handle GitHub pull requests. We are |
| 19 |
> > going to review incoming PRs, communicate with maintainers and merge |
| 20 |
> > them as appropriate. In particular, we're going to help willing |
| 21 |
> > contributors get high-quality, PGP-signed commits into Gentoo, |
| 22 |
> > therefore helping them prepare to become Gentoo developers. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This is cool |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > The side goal is to review current Gentoo commits for major QA |
| 27 |
> > violations and other issues, aiming at improving the quality of |
| 28 |
> > ebuilds in Gentoo and helping other developers using bash, ebuilds |
| 29 |
> > and git effectively. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> This is completely unrelated: since we've had gentoo-commits ml, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
which was promptly utlised |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> every one has been able to do commit reviews easily, and most devs |
| 36 |
> have done so. Self-proclamed reviewers project certainly does not |
| 37 |
> have the monopoly of best practices nor perfect knowledge. I hope |
| 38 |
> they do keep the monopoly of being harassing though :) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Also, you should probably focus on what's really important: reviews |
| 41 |
> like "this is weird, care to explain?" or stylistic nitpicks are just |
| 42 |
> a waste of every one time, meaning more important stuff does not get |
| 43 |
> done. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
To my observation the reaction to this has been between displeasure and |
| 47 |
dismay. Yesterday the dev-ML was flooded with the first day's |
| 48 |
publication of the members' reviews. Firstly the gentoo-commits ML to my |
| 49 |
understanding is intended to be used for and by qa members. This |
| 50 |
project has one whom we presume has the discretion to declare the use |
| 51 |
of the qa hat at whim. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
As someone once put it, it's not the product or message it's the |
| 54 |
delivery of the package. This project in its creation is made of self |
| 55 |
appointed members who assume the status and qualification to suddenly |
| 56 |
launch their evaluations upon unsuspecting folk the community wide with |
| 57 |
neither warning nor their prior knowledge nor consent. The editing |
| 58 |
to the page illustrates already significant back pedalling from feedback |
| 59 |
already challenging its selected mode of delivery. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
The project goals and 'would be' mission statement are in fact |
| 62 |
legitimate and have the backing of Council members. The execution has |
| 63 |
been done independently, unilaterally and with no input or collaboration |
| 64 |
with Council to my knowledge. The actions of this project potentially |
| 65 |
impact on every developer / user of the gentoo project, addressing the |
| 66 |
core skills of both. Yet it has been made, announced and executed in |
| 67 |
this style. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
I invested study time in several units in teaching and lecturing in my |
| 70 |
university education under the education department. Sorry but the |
| 71 |
modi operandi by these self proclaimed teachers and educators thus far |
| 72 |
violate almost every fundamental principle in the art of teaching that |
| 73 |
I learned from the course. There have also been users who have |
| 74 |
expressed concern to me over this directly, some of which have |
| 75 |
indicated they will also email this list to make their views known. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
kind regards |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Ian Delaney |
Archives