| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:48 AM Michael Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>>>> 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not really indicate |
| 9 |
> >>>>> any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has done the |
| 10 |
> minimal |
| 11 |
> >>>>> effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to conflate the |
| 12 |
> two. |
| 13 |
> >>>> I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I don't |
| 14 |
> see very |
| 15 |
> >>>> many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking people if |
| 16 |
> they |
| 17 |
> >>>> are interested[0]" |
| 18 |
> >>> - Does involvement on mailing lists count? |
| 19 |
> >>> - What other ways outside development might somebody be involved in |
| 20 |
> >>> Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild developer. |
| 21 |
> >>> What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all, but loved |
| 22 |
> >>> to talk about Gentoo? |
| 23 |
> >> Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access. If somebody is |
| 24 |
> >> doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a |
| 25 |
> >> developer. Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz. |
| 26 |
> > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software". |
| 27 |
> > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other |
| 28 |
> > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc, genkernel, |
| 29 |
> > catalyst, eselect are some of them. |
| 30 |
> > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > I need to distinguish between: |
| 33 |
> > - ebuild coding contribution |
| 34 |
> > - non-ebuild-coding contribution |
| 35 |
> > - non-coding contribution |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> >> Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer. |
| 38 |
> >> |
| 39 |
> >> We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be considered |
| 40 |
> >> "staff" is now considered a "developer." |
| 41 |
> > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we were |
| 42 |
> > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than |
| 43 |
> > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions above, |
| 44 |
> > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was down-voted |
| 45 |
> > at the time. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle move |
| 48 |
> for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and management |
| 49 |
> of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is |
| 50 |
> something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall leave as |
| 51 |
> an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth highlighting. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
Most of the existing board resigned in the last election, so if anyone |
| 55 |
wanted to 'take over' the Foundation there was ample opportunity; but |
| 56 |
everyone who resigned was re-elected. It seems like this theory has some |
| 57 |
holes in practice ;) |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-A |
Archives