Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

[Alec Warner]

On 3/5/08, Anant Narayanan <anant@g.o> wrote:
> On 06-Mar-08, at 2:35 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>  > Thomas Anderson kirjoitti:
>  >> Arch Testers don't have tree access. This proposal gives the
>  >> package maintainer the ability to commit their changes.
>  >
>  > How would you ensure ebuild quality for these package maintainers?
>
>
> Maintainers will also go through a recruitment process, although a
>  much shorter one which focusses only on ebuild maintenance -
>  maintainers will not have the karma to introduce new ebuilds into the
>  tree. The idea is to make the recruitment process as easy and quick as
>  possible, while ensuring that the person involved has the requisite
>  skills.

Maybe break this down for me again please:

What are the technical differences between a 'Package Maintainer' and
a 'Developer'?

I guess technical is the wrong word.  Lets back up.  What problem are
you trying to solve?

In your original mail; you stated that:

a) The requirements to become a package maintainer for Gentoo may be
lesser than that of the full-fledged developer. This serves a couple
of purposes:
       - Users might become more motivated to becoming a maintainer for
Gentoo, since it would require less time and effort from their end
       - Might reduce the number of orphaned packages we have in the tree

So your goals are:

Have more maintained packages in the tree.
Get more people (users) involved in making Gentoo better.

And you want to accomplish this by:

Creating a position that has less stringent requirements to encourage
interested folks to contribute.

Your point B) also mentions removing pressure from existing developers
by having some move to this new position to be less 'reponsible'.

Can you explain how this 'Package Maintainer' is 'less responsible'
than a full fledged developer?  Can you also explain in more detail
how the position of 'Package Maintainer' is also easier to obtain than
the position of 'Developer'?

You also stated:

"Meanwhile, developers can do innovative things that they really like
without having to maintain packages just because of a formality."

I'm a bit new here; but since when was it required for a developer to
maintain any packages?

I care a lot less about how to implement this idea technically (cvs
acls or lack of Gentoo.org e-mail address) and more so on what this
will actually gain us; and how we should go about designing this
position to accomplish the goals I think you want it to accomplish.

>
>  Also, packages may not be marked stable until a full-fledged-developer/
>  QA-member has approved of it. Packages being broken in the testing
>  tree are not uncommon, and we are usually notified quickly enough to
>  fix it.
>
>  --
>
> Anant--
>
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list