Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent and messy layout of team maintainership in Gentoo

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/18/2015 03:16 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Freitag, 18. September 2015, 06:49:07 schrieb Robin H. Johnson:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:02PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel
>> wrote:
>
>>> a) Disallow the term "herd". Noone uses it correctly anyway.
>>>
>>> b) package is "in herd" -> package is "maintained by project"
>>>
>>> b') in metadata.xml <herd>x<herd>  ->  <project>y<project>
>
>> +1 on each.
>
>>> b'') simple and stupid mapping project y -> alias
>>> y-project@g.o
>>>
>>> ( legacy y@g.o should be forwarded if possible )
>
>> Legacy addresses are not always so simple as y@, the can be like
>>  y-bugs@g.o as well.
>
> I suspect that shouldn't really be a problem for legacy forwarding?
> As long as we don't create new "irregular" addresses...
>
>>> c) project membership implies project e-mail alias membership
>>>
>> There are sometimes alias members that are NOT project
>> members...
>
>>> d) per GLEP 39, only developers can be project members.
>>> introduce a category
>>>
>>> "contributors" who are also listed on the project page and are
>>> also added to the project alias.
>
>> GLEP39 said devs only. It's already not the case, with non-dev
>> members on the aliases.
>
> Well... I don't really see the point of having people on the
> project alias who are not listed on the project page. After all we
> want to simplify things and not keep duplicate lists again.
>
> (For just listening in on bugmail one can always "watch" an alias
> on bugzilla.)
>
> About devs vs. non-devs, well we need to simplify this to one
> central list- keeping place. Given the momentary wording of
> GLEP39, we can't list non-devs as project members on the wiki
> (which would be the authoritative source)- but we can certainly
> introduce an additional category of persons who gets added to the
> project alias the same way as devs / members (and listed on the
> project page in a prominent place). That's what I meant with
> introducing "contributors".
>
> I have no strong opinion so far whether non-devs should be able to
> officially become project members, but if we want that we need to
> fix GLEP39 somehow.
>
>
+1 in general, but I'm a little pensive about allowing non-devs to
become official project members. Becoming a developer can be a
grueling process, so I understand that some don't have the time or
motivation, and still want to help out. So perhaps we could have
contributors who wish to be project members pass our ebuild test, or
some other litmus test to prove themselves, like a developer proxying
them or something. Non-devs don't have direct push permissions to our
main repo, so to my knowledge they'd still have to go through a dev.
I'd just like to see some sort of documentation that sets expectations
for non-dev project members so that a new contributor understands what
would be expected.

Does that make any sense or am I crazy? I'm still working on my coffee.
:)
- -- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=mCiF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----