Re: [gentoo-dev] a #g-d first impression might represent process and metastructure

[Jim Northrup]

Joshua Baergen wrote:

>>2)  There are gentoo.org references to #gentoo-dev, but the process of
>>interfacing, mentoring, and recruiting are self-referential beginning
>>with a bootstrap of being on the good side of an existing developer.  So
>>for those of us who do not establish favorable dialogues by filing a
>>bug, the door starts out closed.
>>
>>
>
>In reference to the difficulties outlined regarding becoming a
>developer above, I am in the process of becoming a dev without any
>contact with developers beforehand except for filing a bug that
>probably annoyed devs more than helped :P  I contacted the recruiting
>group in response to a requirement for developers and they were glad
>to get the process started provided that I showed evidence that I
>would be an asset, mainly through input on bugs currently open.
>
>I doubt that I am the only one who has this story, but that doesn't
>mean your claim in #2 could not have happened to other people.  Did
>you have any specific situations you were referring to when you wrote
>that?
>
>
I was up late on a friday evening hacking up a nifty addition to my
system and in my excitement and exuberance jumped on IRC to the dev
channel to get pointers to the best "official" references to ebuild
crafting and submission.

As it was absolutely silent, I waited a few minutes and requested voice
from the first notice of motion i saw in the channel.. "re", or some
similar indication of important offical business commencing.  I was
informed that the bottom line was voice was only granted to developers,
period, end of story, no exceptions, and I was obviously misinformed and
should be elsewhere.  Instead of anything like assistance I wound up
being told
1) (condescension) it was people like me who try to skirt the gentoo
process which are actually the problem even if we think it's contributing,
2)these important people in this channel are only here so that they can
occasionally ping each other and see thier nickname had been highlighted.
3) that under no circumstance was I going to get an audience in
#gentoo-dev, now or in future context, because it was for developers,
and regardless of 20 years coding experience or working on linux since
0.99, I was not a developer
4) I could feel free to file a bug if I thought there was an issue, or
talk to a recruiter about something to help out with.

my reply was that I enter #gentoo-dev, and request voice when it seems
helpful and important, without incident in all previous occasions
the response was that these developers were obviously in error and it
was irrelevant to the discussion.

I said I'm willing to take my chances as being perceived as noise.
the response was an unceremonious kick.

This developer was possessed with zeal and determination. to be sure.

Anyways, it happened, it's over.  the order and exact words may have
been different but the tone and the impression stuck.   I spent the due
dillegence perfecting my system hack, but I did not succeed in making it
available, or finding a likely benefactor project for voip qos
settings.  This was beneath the involvment of #gentoo-dev at the time i
made the approach.  I spent several hours researching volumes of gentoo
info alternating between the recruitment process and the ebuild process,
on a busy weekend i had planned to spend apart from a console.

so.. as an aside, is there a package with an interest in iptable
configuration for broadband voip qos configs?

Jim
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list