| 1 |
On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 14:06 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 3 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 4 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
| 7 |
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 8 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I would like to request the Council to clarify/generalize their decision |
| 12 |
from 2019-05-12 meeting regarding valid forms of activity for |
| 13 |
a developer. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
In this meeting, the Council confirmed that committing a proxy (without |
| 16 |
direct commit access) is a suitable form of activity for an existing |
| 17 |
developer not to be retired. I would like to ask whether the same form |
| 18 |
of activity (i.e. high level of activity as a proxied maintainer) is |
| 19 |
suitable for recruiting someone as non-commit access developer. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If yes, then I'd like to ask why Recruiters are rejecting such |
| 22 |
a recruit, and requiring him to go through full procedure including |
| 23 |
establishing commit access. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190512-summary.txt |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
Archives