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 4.54) id 1FZrKp-0006xf-Op for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:26:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k3TFPiEg022976; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:25:45 GMT Received: from outbound2.mail.tds.net (outbound2.mail.tds.net [216.170.230.92]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3TFLWNw031674 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:21:33 GMT Received: from outaamta01.mail.tds.net (outaamta01.mail.tds.net [216.170.230.31]) by outbound2.mail.tds.net (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3TFLChf009455 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:21:22 -0500 Received: from cerberus.oppresses.us ([69.21.250.16]) by outaamta01.mail.tds.net with ESMTP id <20060429152111.XLVY31057.outaamta01.mail.tds.net@cerberus.oppresses.us> for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:21:11 -0500 Received: by cerberus.oppresses.us (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2189E4AE94; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:21:08 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union Message-ID: <20060429152108.GA19945@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> <44536D0B.6010402@gentoo.org> <20060429142340.GA18830@cerberus.oppresses.us> <44537A59.1010203@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: <44537A59.1010203@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 37bc6b26-73d5-4915-961f-e23d7eb296a9 X-Archives-Hash: ba3971c4a49514c17ea90e383417f46c On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jon Portnoy wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > >> inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better > >> developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick > >> in and out people. > > > > Empirical evidence agrees. > > > > Our current quiz practices have done a good job keeping out a lot of the > > incompetence that used to slip through before we took that approach. > > > > Stricter tests make for more knowledgable developers and folks with a > > lack of commitment to Gentoo are usually not willing to tackle the > > learning curve. > > > > As for whether or not we're inviting or not, anybody can contribute. > > They don't need to be @gentoo.org to do so. What we really need is to > > focus more on those outside contributions. > > > > so that is where this is all coming from, who said that we should hand > out @gentoo.org ? i never said that, they don't need it, and everyone > gets to feel all special about the @gentoo.org the way they are used to, > a committing contributor does not require a @gentoo.org > That's called a "figure of speech" -- I was not literally referring to the email address but rather Gentoo developer status. Sorry for being unclear. My point was more that commit access is not a prerequisite to contribute. > > and unless you give them a general aptitude and attitude test, you do > not know a thing about the person who answered a few technical questions > (more) > Sure you do. You know whether they know what they're doing in the tree. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list