| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger 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 |
> |
| 5 |
> read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks |
| 8 |
"real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there |
| 9 |
would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Two points to make: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses |
| 14 |
who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding |
| 15 |
these arch testers to? |
| 16 |
* Anyone who decides to volunteer more of their time to our project *just* |
| 17 |
so they can have their own shiny gentoo.org address isn't someone I |
| 18 |
personally want on this project. If they don't have more motivation for |
| 19 |
doing it than that, they don't belong here. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Should staff.gentoo.org ride at the back of the bus? Do we need to set up |
| 22 |
a separate CVS repository for them so they don't accidentally mix bits with |
| 23 |
the pure bloods? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
--kurt |
Archives