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 1EEyAs-00067N-7q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:57:22 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8CNphF8025999; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:51:43 GMT Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CNmwOf024239 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:48:58 GMT Received: from zidane.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@evil-zidane.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.13]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8CNrQOd003975 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (blacksburg-bsr1-69-170-32-128.chvlva.adelphia.net [69.170.32.128]) by zidane.cc.vt.edu (MOS 3.6.4-CR) with ESMTP id EAL21043 (AUTH spbecker); Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <432614F3.2080704@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:23 -0400 From: "Stephen P. Becker" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050807) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff References: <4325D984.1050105@gentoo.org> <200509131604.29767.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <4326059A.3040004@gentoo.org> <432610A1.8050604@egr.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <432610A1.8050604@egr.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f16dcf62-ae3e-4992-aa45-dbe6ee9dec14 X-Archives-Hash: acd5d633f0ba6ecf7795f560f8f51706 >>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. >> >>-Steve > > > For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned > developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit > access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask > for it and take any requisite quizzes. You also have misunderstood my point. I've always been under the impression that ATs are regarded highly enough that they could easily become members of the dev team. With that in mind, *if* we are going to give them nearly every privilege an arch dev has anyway, why not go one step further and just make them an official arch dev and avoid unnecessary bloating of categories with respect to Gentoo dev-team membership? They don't even need commit access if they don't want it. We currently have developers without tree access already in any case. Should we reclassify those folks as well? Besides, if you want to get technical, our entire userbase are arch testers to some extent. They run Gentoo, report bugs, unmask packages locally, submit keywording requests to bugzilla, etc. The good users make Gentoo a good distribution by providing feedback on bugzilla. The very best of these folks are typically tapped for membership in arch teams. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list