| 1 |
On 05/02/14 11:49, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 04.02.2014 23:47, Donnie Berkholz пишет: |
| 3 |
>> On 18:57 Wed 29 Jan , justin wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> He is joining us as staffer (for now, let's see what the future brings) |
| 5 |
>>> to work on portage (the PM) development, where he already contributed code. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Anyone else think it ironic that we call actual developers "staffers" |
| 8 |
>> while ebuild maintainers qualify as "developers"? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Note that I am arguing more for classifying the former as the latter |
| 11 |
>> than vice versa. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I do not think so. Staffer can be designer, doc translator etc. Ebuild |
| 15 |
> maintainance requires programming skill(at basic level, yes, but still). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Donnie is right here. Giving people appropriate titles is a motivation |
| 18 |
factor (see your footer gathering "lead" titles). So we should _not_ |
| 19 |
call someone who is hacking our PM "staffer" but rather "developer". And |
| 20 |
call a translator, designer, package maintainer... by its title. |
| 21 |
I am called developer, but I am actually a package maintainer. This is |
| 22 |
what my expertise is not coding. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The only question do we need to have the developer/staffer title |
| 25 |
discrimination for know who has tree access or not. And I would say no, |
| 26 |
as there is nothing in the official infrastructure like LDAP telling us |
| 27 |
that. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Justin |
Archives