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 1EF3Xu-0003uW-Kx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:41:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8D5aKWD013819; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:36:20 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8D5YeHN001217 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:34:41 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EF3Ve-0007fY-UM for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:39:11 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:39:31 -0500 From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff Message-ID: <20050913053931.GC7156@nightcrawler> References: <200509131604.29767.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org> <432610A1.8050604@egr.msu.edu> <432614F3.2080704@gentoo.org> <1126570437.3416.6.camel@localhost> <43261CBB.4070609@gentoo.org> <43262E51.7050504@egr.msu.edu> <20050913025000.490e1c64@snowdrop.home> <43264100.9090208@egr.msu.edu> <20050913041434.6d458342@snowdrop.home> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OwLcNYc0lM97+oe1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050913041434.6d458342@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: ef49279a-c646-464c-bc99-df25bfe9fa10 X-Archives-Hash: addbbfd357b0d1bd1dd00c5555468610 --OwLcNYc0lM97+oe1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and=20 explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move=20 'up' to the level of an ebuild dev, back to this email... On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> > wrote: > | I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch > | teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer > | status. >=20 > Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but > they haven't yet demonstrated that they're capable of being a full > developer. Arch devs !=3D ebuild devs !=3D ATs They're different roles. =20 Stop intermixing them, unless you're going to start throwing portage devs,= =20 doc devs, infra, and devrel in. There _is_ a common subset to portage devs, arch devs, ebuild devs, and ATs= ,=20 but that does not mean they're equal in requirements and roles. Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless=20 you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by your=20 previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please. > | voting previleges >=20 > Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of > complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who > know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves. Have doc devs demonstrated their understanding of complex technical=20 issues? Portage devs? Infra? Your metric frankly is rather vague. Come up with one applicable to=20 AT's rather then vague terms impying AT's are not of the 'elite'=20 ebuild dev standard please. Additionally, Note that those proposing the glep utilize AT's in their=20 arch; they may have a different view of role/ability of the AT's then=20 you do, and of their abilities. IOW, nail down your metric, then apply it to the existing AT's (since=20 they are what we have to work with), and then re-raise your views that=20 they "don't know what they're doing". Back to the "complex technical issues", point I'm getting at is that=20 the problem domain of both differ, even if they may have a common=20 subset. > | > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then: > | > > | > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment > | > standards. > |=20 > | Commitment first: > | IMNSHO, it is rude to assume that an Arch Tester is less commited to > | their work than an Arch Team member. All developers should be doing > | their part and should hopefully ( we don't live in an ideal world here > | after all ) be commited to doing their work well. A lack of > | commitment that results in shoddy work should get them removed from > | any developer role, Arch Team member or otherwise. >=20 > An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same > length of time as a full developer. This is mild BS, since it's a common issue to all classes of gentoo=20 volunteers. Further, stats provided (as were requested) I'd posit are=20 actually better then ebuild dev stats, although worth noting the=20 sampling period differs. > | Being a Gentoo developer isn't ( or I should say, shouldn't be ) all > | about what happens in CVS. There are many people who support other > | portions of gentoo forums/bugs/devrel/testing/user > | relations/gentooexperimental.org/etc and some sort of stupid elitism > | about being a "better dev" or a dev that has "better skillz" because > | said dev has commit access is simply stupid. Devs with commit access > | may be skilled in the workings of the tree ( and there are certainly > | devs with commit access that do not possess such a skillset ), but > | that should be why they have commit access, because they possess the > | skills to manage the tree. >=20 > Uhm... Different people have different skill levels. Some of this is > down to natural ability, some of it is down to experience. Arch testers > have not yet proven themselves. Full developers have (at least in > theory...). Not much for the natural ability bit/elitist stuff; the question is=20 what they've demonstrated, the work done. Doesn't matter if it=20 takes a person 20 hours, or 1, it's the end product people see,=20 and what ultimately matters (as you've pointed out in re: to QA). Beyond that, I don't agreew with the "Arch testers haven't proven themselve= s". =20 They wouldn't be marked as AT's by the arch if they hadn't demonstrated some form of worth, just the same as ebuild devs aren't recruited if=20 they haven't shown some form of worth (this includes ability to stick=20 around for more then a month). Screwups happen, but the stats offered=20 are a pretty good indication they've got that angle addressed imo. The only bit I'd actually disagree with on the glep is the 2 weeks=20 period for conversion of an AT to an ebuild devs; the two roles (imo)=20 are seperate, those handling ebuild devs should set the requirements=20 themselves, just the same as those handling AT devs should set the=20 requirements they perceive as needed. My 2 cents? They're doing work for gentoo. They may, or may not want=20 to become ebuild devs (that being they're choice, and decided by those=20 handling ebuild devs). Doesn't really matter, not everyone wants to=20 be a pkg maintainer. Treating contributors as second class citizens (in terms of cvs ro=20 access and email) is a really great way to piss on people who are=20 doing a good chunk of work for gentoo. They *should* be provided better means of doing their work, and should=20 be thrown the email addie as recognition for their contributions once=20 they've met the common requirements of all gentoo personel (sticking=20 around, contributing, etc). ~harring --OwLcNYc0lM97+oe1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDJmYSvdBxRoA3VU0RAj1gAKCeWN2i6HkdmrNKv+HzM7Eg/HYszQCcC/s+ NY25cED4kKajOsnaOJbh8lM= =mC74 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OwLcNYc0lM97+oe1-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list