| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Anant Narayanan <anant@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> maintainers don't need to complete the staff quiz. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
The staff quiz is focused on our general procedures and how to behave |
| 5 |
and interact with other devs. It is a great opportunity for the |
| 6 |
recruiter to get to know who he (no "she"s in recruiters, applications |
| 7 |
welcome) is talking to. It's at this time that I have the most |
| 8 |
interesting discussions with the recruit and learn the most on the |
| 9 |
individual (s)he is. We had enough issues in the past with technically |
| 10 |
good people who just couldn't behave that I think skipping this phase |
| 11 |
is really not a good idea. Because, believe it or not, the recruitment |
| 12 |
process in general and the review in particular are not only about |
| 13 |
checking yes/no boxes about the recruit's answers to obscure quizzes. |
| 14 |
Plus, practically the staff quiz takes very little time. With the old |
| 15 |
argument being that if you can't spend that little time on the staff |
| 16 |
quiz then chances are you won't be a dev for long, and thus not worth |
| 17 |
investing time in. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> On the technical side, about the only thing |
| 20 |
> they really require is a sound knowledge of bash, the do's and don'ts |
| 21 |
> of ebuilds, and knowledge of how to use eclasses. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is currently what the ebuild quiz is trying to be. I don't |
| 24 |
understand what difference you want to make between a full dev and a |
| 25 |
package maintainer when both will have to write the same kind of |
| 26 |
ebuilds, face the same kind of issues and have to come up with the |
| 27 |
same kind of solutions. And in in the end create the same risk of |
| 28 |
instability to the tree, only in a more fragmented, thus less |
| 29 |
controllable way (due to more clueless people for the same job). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> As for the privileges, maintainers wouldn't need an email account, |
| 32 |
> commit access to portions not concerning their package(s), |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Meaning that they'll be allowed to break only a certain portion of the |
| 35 |
tree. That's OK with me, as long as it's not the portion I use. I |
| 36 |
believe some people depend on gentoo. I don't see any reason to risk |
| 37 |
making their life miserable. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I hope you're not going to take any of the above personally. My |
| 40 |
opinion is we have proxy maintenance and overlays like sunrise in |
| 41 |
place already. If they're not working properly I suggest we fix them. |
| 42 |
There's no point breaking something in the hope you'll fix something |
| 43 |
else that doesn't work. Go to the root of the problem instead. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Denis. |
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives