Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 15.04.2018 o godzinie 13∶44 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> Hi Michał!
>
> El 14/04/18 a las 09:24, Michał Górny escribió:
> > W dniu pią, 13.04.2018 o godzinie 23∶28 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
> > Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> > > Hi Michał,
> > >
> > > Taking into account that the letter and not the spirit of GLEP 39 is
> > > usually thrown around as a weapon ("INFORMATIVE", HAH!). I strongly
> > > disrecommend having more "informative" policies.
> > >
> > > Not to say that whether you like it or not, not all non ebuild related
> > > developer work is necessarily tied to a project. Even GLEP 39 mentions
> > > this: "Not everything (or everyone) needs a project."
> >
> > If you have a good example of a developer contributing to Gentoo without
> > having commit access and without being tied to a project, I'm all ears.
>
> Here are some randomly picked tasks that don't require belonguing to a
> project:
> * Keeping the documentation on the wiki up to date and clear.
> * Writting new, relevant documentation.
> * Helping address users concerns over one of our official channels
> (forums, gentoo-user mailing list, IRC, etc.).
> * Helping users provide relevant information on bug reports.

Which of those tasks strictly require developer status?  That said, some
of them fall into scope of one or more project -- e.g. Forums project or
Bug Wranglers project.

> All those are tasks making a very significant contribution to Gentoo.
> All of those are tasks that don't require being a member of any project
> to be performed, just having the relevant experience and skills.
> So here is my proof. Where is yours?
>
> Also why have to be the project leads the one determining the activity
> non ebuild developers do? After all GLEP39 clearly states too: " Instead
> the practical responsibility of a lead is "whatever the members
> require", and if that isn't satisfied, the members can get a new lead
> (if they can find somebody to take the job!)." Which doesn't names
> "determining the activity non ebuild developers do". Or maybe could it
> be that you are planning to force project leads to define those
> activites in which case you should modify ALSO GLEP 39.

First of all, I should point out to you that 'GLEP 39' was created at
the time when 'developers' were only people having commit access.  While
people doing other tasks were called 'staffers' and therefore were not
covered by GLEP 39.  Is reducing their privileges what you're really
pursuing?

That said, all I'm doing here is noting down the current Undertaker
policies.  The classification into two groups determines the two main
methods of checking developer's activity.  In case of developers with
repo/gentoo.git commit access, it is easy.  In case of the remaining
developers, this is much harder.

I think that so far the largest group of non-commit-access developers
were Forum project members.  Others were also contributing to some kind
of project (e.g. Infra).  The only reasonably tangible method were
querying the relevant projects to determine whether their members were
active and to establish a good way of measuring one's activity.

Of course, if you insist we could just say that Undertakers determine
the activity at their own accord, and retire people who are apparently
inactive without consulting the project leads.  However, that seems
inferior to the current practice.

What is the problem you're trying to solve here?  Are you just arguing
for the sake of arguing?  Or are you pursuing the concept of 'every
developer obtains his developer status forever, until he agrees to
retire'?

> > The GLEP *explicitly* defines that there are
> > both ebuild and non-ebuild contributions, so whatever you're making up,
> > it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>
> The GLEP defines different requirements for those two sets of peoples
> with the second set having harsher constraints (i.e. not having the
> possibility of having their contributions not being filtered by a third
> party). This second group happens to be "non-ebuild contributors". So
> maybe, instead of trying to insult me a "non-ebuild contributor" you
> could consider looking at the moon instead of the finger.
>

No, I haven't been trying to insult you so far.  What has been happening
here is that *you* have been trying to picture yourself as a potential
victim of insults from 'bad' Gentoo developers who apparently don't
appreciate your 'contributions' to Gentoo.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny