| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 2 |
> What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? |
| 3 |
> Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit |
| 4 |
> but more confusion). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a |
| 7 |
specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve |
| 8 |
the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify |
| 9 |
working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform |
| 10 |
tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch |
| 11 |
shape. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in |
| 14 |
"the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they |
| 17 |
have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put |
| 18 |
in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or |
| 19 |
even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and |
| 20 |
such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them |
| 21 |
*can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That sentiment is reflected in using a subdomain address, and from what we |
| 24 |
heard no tester had any problems with this (the e-mail addy is far less |
| 25 |
important than the rest of the GLEP). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There was never an idea of marking one type of developer different from |
| 28 |
another (this was in fact specifically rejected in the first meeting) but |
| 29 |
rather giving non-developers some appreciation. Perhaps the proposed |
| 30 |
appreciation is misplaced - fine, if that is the sentiment, we'll try to get |
| 31 |
a better one. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has |
| 34 |
passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before |
| 35 |
read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes |
| 36 |
to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should |
| 37 |
be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a |
| 38 |
"Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation |
| 39 |
board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for |
| 40 |
being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their |
| 41 |
work. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment |
| 44 |
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Wkr, |
| 47 |
Sven Vermeulen |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good |
| 50 |
with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between |
| 51 |
people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made |
| 52 |
an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal |
| 53 |
and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers". |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
PPS |
| 56 |
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org |
| 60 |
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp |
| 61 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> |
Archives