1 |
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 4/3/19 8:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o |
7 |
> > <mailto:NP-Hardass@g.o>> wrote: |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
10 |
> > > Hi all, |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > two weeks from today (2019-04-14) the Gentoo Council will meet at |
13 |
> > > 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode. |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to |
16 |
> > put on |
17 |
> > > the agenda to discuss or vote on. |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > Thanks much, |
20 |
> > > |
21 |
> > > William |
22 |
> > > |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > I'd like the council to discuss the issue and general trend of |
25 |
> actions |
26 |
> > (particularly recent) to restrict the ability of developers to |
27 |
> > contribute to Gentoo. In my view, efforts are being made to make |
28 |
> > contributions as users substantially easier, while efforts are being |
29 |
> > made to make being a developer substantially harder. The months of |
30 |
> > studying, quiz taking, and interviews set a bar that should make |
31 |
> > contributions from those individuals that become developers easier |
32 |
> than |
33 |
> > the average user, not more difficult. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > This is a pretty vague statement, are there particular things you want |
37 |
> > the council to review; or just the 'general trend'? |
38 |
> > I'm not aware of any recent changes to the developer onboarding process. |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> > -A |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > -- |
45 |
> > NP-Hardass |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Not just the onboarding, but the retention too. General trend is what |
49 |
> I'm proposing should be discussed publicly during the meeting. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Three points: |
52 |
> |
53 |
> At present time, everyone needs a "Real Name" to contribute. A user, |
54 |
> with a new email address, can allege to be "Foo Bar" and contribute |
55 |
> without impediment, but, as recent proposals would have it, developers |
56 |
> would need to show proof of ID over video call to become part of the web |
57 |
> of trust for committing. That effectively allows any user to remain |
58 |
> anonymous by using a false name, obviating a huge portion of the alleged |
59 |
> benefit to requiring names in the first place. So, developers can be |
60 |
> held to such a high standard that they can either no longer contribute, |
61 |
> while we trim eligible pool of new developers and compare that to the |
62 |
> ease with which any "named" contributor on github or bugzilla can do as |
63 |
> they please. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
I think it is reasonable to try to pursue a more inclusive policy where |
67 |
identity is more flexible (as I discussed in a different message on this |
68 |
thread), but keep in mind the Council (and really a few key members) spent |
69 |
over a year working on the policy we have; so I'm not certain its a trivial |
70 |
change. You are free to dislike the policy we have and you are free to |
71 |
suggest we pursue a more inclusive policy, but at least here as a trustee |
72 |
who voted for it we made a deliberate choice here and barring some middle |
73 |
ground where we somehow understand that contributions to Gentoo are done in |
74 |
a low-risk way, we will continue to reject commits from obvious |
75 |
contributors. |
76 |
|
77 |
What I refuse to engage in is an incessant debate about the policy we have; |
78 |
please accept that we made it in good faith to reduce legal risk for the |
79 |
project and, if an alternative is presented that keeps risk low while |
80 |
accepting a broader set of contributions we will consider it in the same |
81 |
good faith. |
82 |
|
83 |
-A |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
> We currently have a RFC, just posted two days ago, for developers to be |
87 |
> regularly tested to maintain commit status. Again, if the developer |
88 |
> feels like it, maybe it is easier for him/her to just become a plain old |
89 |
> user and submit patches, waiting on the (as I see it, dwindling,) amount |
90 |
> of active other developers ready to commit instead. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> Totally anecdotal, I've seen developers that have fairly decent QA on |
93 |
> their own commits merge PRs from users without full review and |
94 |
> introducing a whole host of issues because code from users isn't always |
95 |
> vetted as thoroughly as ones own work. So, I'd argue, the QA standards |
96 |
> of being a dev don't quite apply to you as stringently once you |
97 |
> downgrade to being a user... |
98 |
> |
99 |
> At the end of the day, holding developers to higher standards than users |
100 |
> is a given, but it shouldn't be more onerous to be a developer than to |
101 |
> be a user contributing. |
102 |
> |
103 |
> -- |
104 |
> NP-Hardass |
105 |
> |
106 |
> |