| 1 |
Hi Michał! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
El 14/04/18 a las 09:24, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 4 |
> W dniu pią, 13.04.2018 o godzinie 23∶28 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas |
| 5 |
> Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał: |
| 6 |
>> Hi Michał, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Taking into account that the letter and not the spirit of GLEP 39 is |
| 9 |
>> usually thrown around as a weapon ("INFORMATIVE", HAH!). I strongly |
| 10 |
>> disrecommend having more "informative" policies. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Not to say that whether you like it or not, not all non ebuild related |
| 13 |
>> developer work is necessarily tied to a project. Even GLEP 39 mentions |
| 14 |
>> this: "Not everything (or everyone) needs a project." |
| 15 |
> If you have a good example of a developer contributing to Gentoo without |
| 16 |
> having commit access and without being tied to a project, I'm all ears. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Here are some randomly picked tasks that don't require belonguing to a |
| 19 |
project: |
| 20 |
* Keeping the documentation on the wiki up to date and clear. |
| 21 |
* Writting new, relevant documentation. |
| 22 |
* Helping address users concerns over one of our official channels |
| 23 |
(forums, gentoo-user mailing list, IRC, etc.). |
| 24 |
* Helping users provide relevant information on bug reports. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
All those are tasks making a very significant contribution to Gentoo. |
| 27 |
All of those are tasks that don't require being a member of any project |
| 28 |
to be performed, just having the relevant experience and skills. |
| 29 |
So here is my proof. Where is yours? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Also why have to be the project leads the one determining the activity |
| 32 |
non ebuild developers do? After all GLEP39 clearly states too: " Instead |
| 33 |
the practical responsibility of a lead is "whatever the members |
| 34 |
require", and if that isn't satisfied, the members can get a new lead |
| 35 |
(if they can find somebody to take the job!)." Which doesn't names |
| 36 |
"determining the activity non ebuild developers do". Or maybe could it |
| 37 |
be that you are planning to force project leads to define those |
| 38 |
activites in which case you should modify ALSO GLEP 39. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
>> As a closing note, I'm really getting tired of all this "Either you |
| 41 |
>> write ebuilds or you are a piece of shit" philosophy that is running on |
| 42 |
>> the ambient nowadays. If such people want a developer centric source |
| 43 |
>> based distro, who gives shit about the non developers I strongly |
| 44 |
>> recommend trying Exherbo instead. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
> This is highly inappropriate, especially given that you are a public |
| 47 |
> representative of Gentoo. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
If you want to play the "you more" game I strongly recommend you read |
| 50 |
Matthew 7:5. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> The GLEP *explicitly* defines that there are |
| 53 |
> both ebuild and non-ebuild contributions, so whatever you're making up, |
| 54 |
> it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
The GLEP defines different requirements for those two sets of peoples |
| 57 |
with the second set having harsher constraints (i.e. not having the |
| 58 |
possibility of having their contributions not being filtered by a third |
| 59 |
party). This second group happens to be "non-ebuild contributors". So |
| 60 |
maybe, instead of trying to insult me a "non-ebuild contributor" you |
| 61 |
could consider looking at the moon instead of the finger. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Klondike |
Archives