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 1EFBBH-0003o6-DN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:50:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8DDjQTo023715; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:45:26 GMT Received: from mailrelay1.tu-graz.ac.at (mailrelay.tu-graz.ac.at [129.27.2.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8DDhftf029652 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:43:41 GMT Received: from localhost (fanachpc62.tu-graz.ac.at [129.27.185.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailrelay1.tu-graz.ac.at (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8DDmCWW019973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:48:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:49:56 +0200 From: Wernfried Haas To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff Message-ID: <20050913134956.GA19302@superlupo> References: <43261CBB.4070609@gentoo.org> <43262E51.7050504@egr.msu.edu> <20050913025000.490e1c64@snowdrop.home> <43264100.9090208@egr.msu.edu> <20050913041434.6d458342@snowdrop.home> <20050913035137.GA7156@nightcrawler> <20050913050446.45315d4d@snowdrop.home> <4326B751.8030709@gentoo.org> <4326BF7A.6030005@gentoo.org> <4326CF59.2060002@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4326CF59.2060002@gentoo.org> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel (Linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.27.10.18 X-Archives-Salt: 6ae4ff79-4b8b-48a4-8baa-6e4aa74d9ef1 X-Archives-Hash: 2244c0205f36d1f91d34506c764e3c5c On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:08:41AM -0500, Mike Doty wrote: > No, you're confusing the different definitions of developers. In the > gentoo sense of everyone is a developer(ebuild, infra, devrel, even > forums), then yes, you would have to consider the AT as a "developer." Uuuuh, watch your language. This was a hot topic before ;-) > Due to the fact that it hasn't been official, providing them with the > tools to get their job done has been a challenge. I don't think it's > right to ask for read-only CVS without them being official for example. Makes sense. They need official tools to do official work, so make them official. > While most developers have accepted them and use them, there are still > those that look down on them. What can I say, other than a distro like > gentoo inherently breeds a certain level of 31337ism, however misplaced > or inappropriate it is. At least the fact that some people cry out loud as soon someone talks about people who don't mess up ebuilds as developers is a bit strange. > So, the choice for an AT to not pursue becoming a ebuild/arch dev is > theirs to make, with a wide variety of reasons. It's not that they lack > in any one skill that would otherwise make them a developer. They may know even more than people commited to doing infra, devrel or forums work who are full members as well. Gentoo is more than a bunch of developers and there are also a lot of folks filling different positions (e.g. developer and infra). In fact current ATs are already doing the ebuild quiz, which is "harder" than the staff quiz others do. They do important work even though it's not _that_ 13117 as writing ebuilds. I really don't see a reason why they should not get full staff priviledges. After all Gentoo is the result of our united efforts. We need people writing code as well as docs team, infra, forums, devrel, AT and all the other folks i forgot now. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list