| 1 |
Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST] |
| 2 |
> >The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using |
| 3 |
> >it... |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree |
| 7 |
> should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be |
| 8 |
> part of two projects but neither gives me access to the tree so I would |
| 9 |
> get an @staff.g.o and am fine with that. It lets people I email outside |
| 10 |
> of the project know that I am staff and not a developer. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I rather strongly disagree. It is true that in the past we have used |
| 13 |
the word "staff" to denote devs who do not have gentoo-x86 commit |
| 14 |
access. I've never been in favor of that terminology, however. Devs |
| 15 |
are devs, whether they have gentoo-x86 commit access or not. Our doc |
| 16 |
devs or infra devs can break Gentoo in ways just as horrific as our |
| 17 |
devs w/ tree access can. Infra, doc, or tree access just determines |
| 18 |
which part of Gentoo you're allowed to break (in a rather twisted way of |
| 19 |
looking at things). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's terribly important to me that we not somehow end up with |
| 22 |
first-class devs and second-class devs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the |
| 25 |
role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose |
| 26 |
something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. |
| 27 |
(Indeed, I'd have preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling |
| 28 |
fact that we're all volunteers.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-g2boojum- |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 36 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives