| 1 |
Homer Parker wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more |
| 4 |
>> privileges |
| 5 |
>> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers |
| 6 |
>> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them |
| 7 |
>> commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is |
| 8 |
>> supposed to be the end goal anyway. Basically, I feel like this GLEP |
| 9 |
>> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the |
| 10 |
>> arch testers. Maybe it's just me though. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Some people don't want to be a dev. Some people can't commit the |
| 13 |
> resources to maintain dev status. There's a lot more responsibility in |
| 14 |
> being a dev then an AT, and some people don't want that. So, becoming an |
| 15 |
> AT is a way they can contribute without having to worry about all the |
| 16 |
> extra responsibilities involved with being a dev. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I just wanted to say that this is exactly the situation i'm in. I've |
| 19 |
applied to the x86 arch tester team because i enjoy working on Gentoo, |
| 20 |
but don't have a lot of time to do it in. Work carts me about 100 miles |
| 21 |
from an internet connection every Monday and drops me back off in |
| 22 |
civilization every Friday. Knock off another half-day spent trying to |
| 23 |
catch up on humongoloid GLEP threads and I don't have a bunch of free |
| 24 |
time left. ;] Arch testing is one way I can contribute without the |
| 25 |
overhead, and I don't fancy becoming a developer any time soon. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
--de. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives