| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:54:44AM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM +0000 or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If I'm understanding it correctly, the concern was that by giving folks |
| 9 |
> "real" gentoo.org addresses if they were "only" doing arch testing, there |
| 10 |
> would be no incentive for them to contribute any more than that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
not really ... more like handing out @gentoo.org addresses to people |
| 13 |
was becoming a gimmick. i'm quite proud to have a @gentoo.org e-mail |
| 14 |
and dont really like the idea of trivializing it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> * There are a lot of Gentoo devs right now with full gentoo.org addresses |
| 17 |
> who don't do squat for this project, so exactly what bar are we holding |
| 18 |
> these arch testers to? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
this is why we have been retiring people. if a Gentoo dev is useless, |
| 21 |
then lets go with iggy's GLEP and vote the worthless cruft off the |
| 22 |
island. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
being a 'full dev' implies you can be held accountable and are |
| 25 |
required to fulfill a significant amount of responsibility. AT's dont |
| 26 |
generally want that level of commitment. i'm not saying that what |
| 27 |
they contribute is meaningless (they have a useful role in the Gentoo |
| 28 |
project), just that i'd like to think that i, and other 'full devs', |
| 29 |
take it to the next level. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
uNF |
| 32 |
-mike |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives