Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Brian Harring]

Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to 
everything that follows from your email.

define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.

It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level 
as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.


On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
> wrote:
> | I'm not confusing anything here.  Arch Devs ( ala members of arch
> | teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer
> | status.
>
> Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but
> they haven't yet demonstrated that they're capable of being a full
> developer.
>
> | voting previleges
>
> Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
> complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
> know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves.
>
> | > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
> | >
> | > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment
> | > standards.
> |
> | Commitment first:
> | IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to
> | their work than an Arch Team member.  All developers should be doing
> | their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here
> | after all ) be commited to doing their work well.  A lack of
> | commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from
> | any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise.
>
> An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same
> length of time as a full developer.
>
> | Being a Gentoo developer isn't ( or I should say, shouldn't be ) all
> | about what happens in CVS.  There are many people who support other
> | portions of gentoo forums/bugs/devrel/testing/user
> | relations/gentooexperimental.org/etc and some sort of stupid elitism
> | about being a "better dev" or a dev that has "better skillz" because
> | said dev has commit access is simply stupid.  Devs with commit access
> | may be skilled in the workings of the tree ( and there are certainly
> | devs with commit access that do not possess such a skillset ), but
> | that should be why they have commit access, because they possess the
> | skills to manage the tree.
>
> Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is
> down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers
> have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in
> theory...).
>
> | Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by
> | herd/package/section than just "generic tree access".  Commiting
> | something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows
> | what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!).  The bad
> | part being when no one is around who has commit access.  A resolution
> | for this situation would need to be required.  Expections would need
> | to occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen
> | from time to time ).  However I'd like to see more input on things
> | like this ( along with say, council approval? :) ).
>
> Take a look at the branches proposal that's been floating around. It's
> basically what you suggested with fewer holes and a more realistic view
> of how development gets done.
>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>


~harring