Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2019-04-14

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:05 PM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/19 8:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o
>> > <mailto:NP-Hardass@g.o>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> >     > Hi all,
>> >     >
>> >     > two weeks from today (2019-04-14) the Gentoo Council will meet at
>> >     > 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode.
>> >     >
>> >     > Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to
>> >     put on
>> >     > the agenda to discuss or vote on.
>> >     >
>> >     > Thanks much,
>> >     >
>> >     > William
>> >     >
>> >
>> >     I'd like the council to discuss the issue and general trend of
>> actions
>> >     (particularly recent) to restrict the ability of developers to
>> >     contribute to Gentoo.  In my view, efforts are being made to make
>> >     contributions as users substantially easier, while efforts are being
>> >     made to make being a developer substantially harder.  The months of
>> >     studying, quiz taking, and interviews set a bar that should make
>> >     contributions from those individuals that become developers easier
>> than
>> >     the average user, not more difficult.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is a pretty vague statement, are there particular things you want
>> > the council to review; or just the 'general trend'?
>> > I'm not aware of any recent changes to the developer onboarding process.
>> >
>> > -A
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     NP-Hardass
>> >
>>
>> Not just the onboarding, but the retention too.  General trend is what
>> I'm proposing should be discussed publicly during the meeting.
>>
>> Three points:
>>
>> At present time, everyone needs a "Real Name" to contribute.  A user,
>> with a new email address, can allege to be "Foo Bar" and contribute
>> without impediment, but, as recent proposals would have it, developers
>> would need to show proof of ID over video call to become part of the web
>> of trust for committing.  That effectively allows any user to remain
>> anonymous by using a false name, obviating a huge portion of the alleged
>> benefit to requiring names in the first place. So, developers can be
>> held to such a high standard that they can either no longer contribute,
>> while we trim eligible pool of new developers and compare that to the
>> ease with which any "named" contributor on github or bugzilla can do as
>> they please.
>>
>
> I think it is reasonable to try to pursue a more inclusive policy where
> identity is more flexible (as I discussed in a different message on this
> thread), but keep in mind the Council (and really a few key members) spent
> over a year working on the policy we have; so I'm not certain its a trivial
> change. You are free to dislike the policy we have and you are free to
> suggest we pursue a more inclusive policy, but at least here as a trustee
> who voted for it we made a deliberate choice here and barring some middle
> ground where we somehow understand that contributions to Gentoo are done in
> a low-risk way, we will continue to reject commits from obvious
> contributors.
>

Er, not obvious contributors, but contributors committing obvious
violations of the policy, sorry ;)

-A


>
> What I refuse to engage in is an incessant debate about the policy we
> have; please accept that we made it in good faith to reduce legal risk for
> the project and, if an alternative is presented that keeps risk low while
> accepting a broader set of contributions we will consider it in the same
> good faith.
>
> -A
>
>
>> We currently have a RFC, just posted two days ago, for developers to be
>> regularly tested to maintain commit status.  Again, if the developer
>> feels like it, maybe it is easier for him/her to just become a plain old
>> user and submit patches, waiting on the (as I see it, dwindling,) amount
>> of active other developers ready to commit instead.
>>
>> Totally anecdotal, I've seen developers that have fairly decent QA on
>> their own commits merge PRs from users without full review and
>> introducing a whole host of issues because code from users isn't always
>> vetted as thoroughly as ones own work.  So, I'd argue, the QA standards
>> of being a dev don't quite apply to you as stringently once you
>> downgrade to being a user...
>>
>> At the end of the day, holding developers to higher standards than users
>> is a given, but it shouldn't be more onerous to be a developer than to
>> be a user contributing.
>>
>> --
>> NP-Hardass
>>
>>