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

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
> > [Summary] thread.
> >
> > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
> > some other devs.  First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
> > even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.
>
> Let me clarify here.  I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> at all.  I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> commit access after a probationary period?  It seems like this is
> supposed to be the end goal anyway.  Basically, I feel like this GLEP
> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the
> arch testers.  Maybe it's just me though.
>

Maybe the email address is not such an issue, but it does seem fair to
people taking time and commitment as a 'kind' of reward .. after of
course the probation period.  Sort of off the topic, but wanted to
clarify.

Why I did though say that read-only access to CVS do make sense for AT
testers, is that while they will not be actually fixing bugs (OK, so
they can make patches, etc), they will though need to test stuff, and
especially if its an important or urgent fix, not needing to wait for
the rsync mirrors will be a plus for them.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer