From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EEyUU-000831-5F
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:17:39 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8D09w1Y021982;
	Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:09:58 GMT
Received: from linux.homershut.net (linux.homershut.net [64.216.105.3])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8D06MuV032458
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:06:23 GMT
Received: from 5-lan.homershut.net (5-lan.homershut.net [192.168.1.5])
	by linux.homershut.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j8D0APD04335
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:10:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
From: Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org>
References: <4325D984.1050105@gentoo.org>
	 <200509131604.29767.chriswhite@gentoo.org>  <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:10:24 -0500
Message-Id: <1126570224.10578.4.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Homershut-MailScanner-Information: Virus and spam filtering courtesy of Homer's Hut
X-Homershut-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Homershut-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
	SpamAssassin (score=-6, required 5, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO -6.00)
X-MailScanner-From: hparker@gentoo.org
X-Archives-Salt: 6598909a-cc3f-422e-b3c8-7631902b3431
X-Archives-Hash: 0ff820945c4c544fe3b09b7251962cc3

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> 
> Let me clarify here.  I'm not concerned about ATs having more
> privileges 
> at all.  I just want to know why if we're making them full developers 
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them 
> commit access after a probationary period?  It seems like this is 
> supposed to be the end goal anyway.  Basically, I feel like this GLEP 
> goes outside the bounds of what I think of when somebody mentions the 
> arch testers.  Maybe it's just me though.

	Some people don't want to be a dev. Some people can't commit the
resources to maintain dev status. There's a lot more responsibility in
being a dev then an AT, and some people don't want that. So, becoming an
AT is a way they can contribute without having to worry about all the
extra responsibilities involved with being a dev.

-- 
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
hparker@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list