1 |
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 20:48 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
3 |
> > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? |
4 |
> > Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit |
5 |
> > but more confusion). |
6 |
> |
7 |
> One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has |
8 |
> passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before |
9 |
> read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes |
10 |
> to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should |
11 |
> be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a |
12 |
> "Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation |
13 |
> board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for |
14 |
> being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their |
15 |
> work. |
16 |
|
17 |
I not only took the staff quiz but the ebuild one as well (I think all |
18 |
of the amd64 AT had to) and my primary goals of doing so were to get a |
19 |
bit more credibility in bugzy and CVS access (ro). After spending a bit |
20 |
more time in bugzy I really would like to be able to see what comments |
21 |
are coming from other ATs as easily as I can tell which comments are |
22 |
from the devs. There have been a couple of developers that have tried |
23 |
to recruit me and although I think I have pretty good computer/Linux |
24 |
skills I still have a lot to learn about the internals of Gentoo. I |
25 |
intend to become a developer when I learn a bit more so I just consider |
26 |
an AT as an interim step in becoming a dev but many ATs want to stay at |
27 |
that level for whatever their reasons. (I can certainly understand the |
28 |
desire NOT to HAVE to follow these long threads. :) If ATs get a @g.o |
29 |
address the same problem will arise with determining the difference |
30 |
between an AT with similar experience to me and a developer with much |
31 |
more experience than me -- the need to refer to an external list. For |
32 |
that reason I would prefer to have sub-domain addresses. |
33 |
|
34 |
I think that there should be other sub-domains too but the current |
35 |
people should be left alone under a grandfather clause. That would also |
36 |
help to see what people are working on what. |
37 |
|
38 |
staff.gentoo.org forum staff |
39 |
amd64-at.gentoo.org Arch testers for the amd64 platform |
40 |
contributer.gentoo.org People that donate $$$ to Gentoo |
41 |
retired.gentoo.org A thanks for helping earlier domain |
42 |
|
43 |
For the developers like ferringb, solar, vapier, etc. that have many |
44 |
roles perhaps they could have the subdomains forward to their |
45 |
@gentoo.org address. But then again that complicates things for the |
46 |
-infra team which I don't want to do. That is why I've tried to keep |
47 |
quiet. There is still quite a bit for me to learn. |
48 |
|
49 |
Earlier vapier said: "AT's dont generally want that level of |
50 |
commitment. i'm not saying that what they contribute is meaningless |
51 |
(they have a useful role in the Gentoo project), just that i'd like to |
52 |
think that i, and other 'full devs', take it to the next level." |
53 |
|
54 |
While I believe that some AT's don't want that level of commitment I |
55 |
don't think that is true in the general sense. I think most of the AT's |
56 |
from the amd64 team are in the process of learning what it takes to |
57 |
truly be a developer before we are held accountable for the inevitable |
58 |
mistakes that we will make while learning. I just pray that I don't |
59 |
have to get to vapier's level before becoming a devel. He sets the bar |
60 |
at a very high level for both activity and skill (as do many other devs |
61 |
-- but not all). |
62 |
|
63 |
deltacow stated that in IRC... and my response to that is: "that is |
64 |
what IRC cloaks are for". Voice is used to mark AT's in #gentoo-amd64 |
65 |
but the voice is used mostly for tor users in #gentoo. I don't want to |
66 |
open a new can of worms by bringing in IRC but there really is no |
67 |
standardization throughout the channels and I think that is the way that |
68 |
most people want to keep it. I'm not suggesting anything until I learn |
69 |
more. |
70 |
|
71 |
Again, the ro-cvs access is what I want most from the GLEP and I offer |
72 |
this opinion because I was asked to. Thanks all, |
73 |
|
74 |
> I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment |
75 |
> of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? |
76 |
> |
77 |
> Wkr, |
78 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
79 |
> |
80 |
> PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good |
81 |
> with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between |
82 |
> people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made |
83 |
> an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal |
84 |
> and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers". |
85 |
> |
86 |
> PPS |
87 |
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
Tres Melton |
91 |
IRC & Gentoo: RiverRat |