Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: council@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:56:09
Message-Id: 0a3d9d42d62fd2d9c126a97174d4582a110f213a.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13 by Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 14:06 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda > to discuss or vote on. > > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to > repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously > suggested one (since the last meeting). >
I would like to request the Council to clarify/generalize their decision from 2019-05-12 meeting regarding valid forms of activity for a developer. In this meeting, the Council confirmed that committing a proxy (without direct commit access) is a suitable form of activity for an existing developer not to be retired. I would like to ask whether the same form of activity (i.e. high level of activity as a proxied maintainer) is suitable for recruiting someone as non-commit access developer. If yes, then I'd like to ask why Recruiters are rejecting such a recruit, and requiring him to go through full procedure including establishing commit access. [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190512-summary.txt -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature