| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if |
| 5 |
>> an AT |
| 6 |
>> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been |
| 7 |
>> AT for |
| 8 |
>> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run |
| 9 |
>> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled |
| 10 |
>> situations |
| 11 |
>> like this for a while and only made positive experiences. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It |
| 15 |
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs." |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Well, depending how you want spin it, I either did or didn't mean that. |
| 18 |
I'm just saying that if we're going to basically give them everything |
| 19 |
that a "developer" gets sans commit access to the tree (which not even |
| 20 |
all official developers have by the way), why not take the extra step |
| 21 |
with them? I can tell you, for example, that if we encountered any |
| 22 |
folks good enough to be a mips AT, we'd probably just skip that whole |
| 23 |
business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is |
| 24 |
whether this GLEP is necessary? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-Steve |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives