Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.

[Dean Stephens]

On 11/07/16 05:59, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 07/11/2016 03:32, Alec Warner wrote:
>> The foundation currently has 1 member type (in the bylaws) but Gentoo
>> itself still seems to have 2 (Gentoo staff and Ebuild developer)
>>
>> This motion represents an idea that the community itself would only have 1
>> contributor type.
>
> Should not be discussed here since you want to change something mainly
> in the Gentoo Project, not the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> Incidentally I'd like to know how many are staff and not also developers.
>
> If you perceive the two roles as a problem the simplest thing is to
> mandate everybody to be a developer.
>
Having two role description is simply indicative of there being, rather
unsurprisingly, two distinct forms of role being fulfilled. People doing
ebuild work need to have the technical knowledge and oversight to
produce and maintain ebuilds, people who are doing work not involving
ebuilds have no such need.

Call "staff" "developers" if you must, even those who do not actually
work with code at all; but mandating that everyone "be a developer" in
the sense of taking the full quiz set is pointless and fraught with
potential problems. To posit a trivial example, if everyone took the
developer quiz set, would someone who then did no ebuild work at all be
eligible to mentor someone being recruited expressly to do ebuild work
after they had been doing no ebuild work themselves during the year they
needed to accrue sufficient seniority to act as a mentor? If not, why
(formally)? If so... why?

Conversely, you could be making the argument that everyone who is
currently working in a staff role would need to "be a developer" in the
full sense of maintaining at least minimal activity in the tree. In
which case you have effectively forced the retirement everyone who only
has enough time to spare on Gentoo work for their staff role. That seems
rather counterproductive.

> lu
>
>
>