[gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 205 bytes --]

Hi all,

This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm 
curious what you think of it.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: glep-041-r1.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1948 bytes --]

GLEP: 41
Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/09/07 18:53:20 $
Author:	Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>,
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 7-Sep-2005
Post-History:

Abstract
========

Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.


Motivation
==========

Since Mike Doty (kingtaco) created an Arch Tester (AT) project in January 2005
to reduce the developer's load and the amount of open keywording bugs for the
amd64 porting team, many users have volunteered to become ATs. They are doing
a fair share of everyday's work to keep the amd64 and ppc trees up to date.
While they spent many hours and even had to pass the staff quiz, they are
currently not recognized as official members of Gentoo.


Specification
=============

ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes
to the current situation:

- Get a @gentoo.org email address
- Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 repository

Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations
like this for a while and only made positive experiences.

Also, the idea of an arch tester as a trustful user who is able to test
critical changes (such as hard masked software branches), should be expanded
to every herd. These 'ATs' wouldn't be called arch testers as the 'arch' is
irritating, instead, herd tester (HT) could be used.

As arch testers (and herd testers) become official staff, they should be
handled by DevRel.


Backwards Compatibility
=======================

All current arch testers should be migrated to staff.


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.

Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
stuck around but didn't do much?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this 
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree.  Perhaps 
the "arch tester" job could simply be made as a probationary period for 
developer recruits.  The good ATs typically go on to be developers 
anyway, no?  This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you 
for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when 
you graduate if you were/are good enough.

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:39 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:

> ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes
> to the current situation:
> 
> - Get a @gentoo.org email address

Personally think this might only be fair.

> - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 repository
> 

Can understand the reasoning for this ... we have acl's, etc to make
this possible?

> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations
> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
> 

Not too familiar on this, so i guess its going to depend on how thorough
the planned (new?) AT tests are.

> Also, the idea of an arch tester as a trustful user who is able to test
> critical changes (such as hard masked software branches), should be expanded
> to every herd. These 'ATs' wouldn't be called arch testers as the 'arch' is
> irritating, instead, herd tester (HT) could be used.
> 
> As arch testers (and herd testers) become official staff, they should be
> handled by DevRel.
> 
> 
> Backwards Compatibility
> =======================
> 
> All current arch testers should be migrated to staff.
> 
> 
> Copyright
> =========
> 
> This document has been placed in the public domain.
> 
-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Donnie Berkholz]

Simon Stelling wrote:
> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled situations
> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.

Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It 
reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> developer recruits.  The good ATs typically go on to be developers 
> anyway, no?  This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you 
> for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when 
> you graduate if you were/are good enough.

That's what the amd64 herd does for quite some time anyway, but apparently there 
are people who don't want to become developers with commit access, so that 
doesn't mean we'll loose all ATs ;)

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> 
>> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if 
>> an AT
>> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been 
>> AT for
>> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
>> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled 
>> situations
>> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
> 
> 
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It 
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Well, depending how you want spin it, I either did or didn't mean that. 
  I'm just saying that if we're going to basically give them everything 
that a "developer" gets sans commit access to the tree (which not even 
all official developers have by the way), why not take the extra step 
with them?  I can tell you, for example, that if we encountered any 
folks good enough to be a mips AT, we'd probably just skip that whole 
business and make them an arch dev.  I guess what I'm *really* asking is 
whether this GLEP is necessary?

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if 
>> an AT
>> wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been 
>> AT for
>> at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
>> through the process of an AT. The amd64 porting team has handled 
>> situations
>> like this for a while and only made positive experiences.
> 
> 
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's? It 
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

Err, it is 'should' as in 'is recommended', not 'have to'. It really doesn't 
make sense for *every* herd, and should be handled on a per-herd basis anyway.

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's?
> It 
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."

	That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while
now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches
him about becoming a dev.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I guess what I'm *really* asking is 
> whether this GLEP is necessary?

	There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other
post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time
constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

Homer Parker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> 
>>I guess what I'm *really* asking is 
>>whether this GLEP is necessary?
> 
> 
> 	There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
> worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
> ATs recognized as an official part of the team. As I said in my other
> post, we have several ATs that don't want to become devs, time
> constraints, etc, keep them from making that commitment.

If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges 
than some devs get even?

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Wernfried Haas]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.
Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for
Gentoo should become part of the team.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> business and make them an arch dev.  I guess what I'm *really* asking is 
> whether this GLEP is necessary?

As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest 
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February, the 
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote:
>         That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a
> while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
> moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him
> about becoming a dev.
That excluding my strange case eh? :P

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
> 
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?
> 

Valid point ... maybe a probation period before the provisions of this
glep kicks in if the numbers are acceptable?


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Olivier Crete]

On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
> 
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?

Here is the list of AT's, current and past. Those marked active are
really active. And most of them joined in the last 2-3 months. 

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=1

Btw, do we want to be voters in the council elections? I'm not sure they
should be given a more official status. But giving easier access to
developership if they have done a good job as ATs should definitely be
considered.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer
x86 Security Liaison


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?

	This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and current status:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=1

	Most are fairly active. Of the active ATs, I'd say 60-70%. or more, are
active daily. 

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> 
> If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges 
> than some devs get even?

	What would that be?

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> 
> As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
> rest 
> stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
> the 
> youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.

	And ppc has 3-4.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Joseph Jezak]

Homer Parker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> 
>>As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
>>rest 
>>stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
>>the 
>>youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
> 
> 
> 	And ppc has 3-4.
> 

We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far.  Of those, 1 has become a dev.

-Joe
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far.  Of those, 1 has become a
> dev.

	W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;)

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

Chris White wrote:
> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy 
> [Summary] thread.
> 
> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than 
> some other devs.  First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and 
> even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.

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
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Daniel Drake]

Simon Stelling wrote:
> This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. 
> I'm curious what you think of it.

I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.

Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading 
the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent taken any 
quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree?

Thanks,
Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1512 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy 
> > [Summary] thread.
> > 
> > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than 
> > some other devs.  First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and 
> > even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.
> 
> 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.
> 

Maybe the email address is not such an issue, but it does seem fair to
people taking time and commitment as a 'kind' of reward .. after of
course the probation period.  Sort of off the topic, but wanted to
clarify.

Why I did though say that read-only access to CVS do make sense for AT
testers, is that while they will not be actually fixing bugs (OK, so
they can make patches, etc), they will though need to test stuff, and
especially if its an important or urgent fix, not needing to wait for
the rsync mirrors will be a plus for them.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> 
>> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a
>> nice tidy [Summary] thread.
>>
>> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges
>> than some other devs.  First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly
>> access, and even so, the whole point of this thing is to make
>> development smoother.
> 
> 
> 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=Q3PZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

>>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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> 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.

	ATs will be read only, we've never asked for cvs write access for them.

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -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.
> >>
> >>-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?

You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
access.  If the people involved decide they want to become committing
devs, it also make it easier to make that transition.  If they don't
want to commit, they can stay as an AT.

> 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.

I agree.  What the AT program has done for amd64, tho, is give us a base
of users that have known skills (they were recruited and passed the
ebuild quiz) and have a known process they follow for testing and
marking bugs, so that the devs have a much easier time staying on top of
keywording issues.  We've basically said that we trust the ATs to know
how to test a package, and we'll take their word for it that it works.
It's been very useful for us, and we think it will be useful for others.

Daniel
(former AT)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people
> involved.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from
> reading 
> the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent
> taken any 
> quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree?

	They don't even have read only, which is all we want for them. They do
nothing in the tree, mark bugs TESTED in bugzilla is about as close as
they get. As for how they operate, here's the docs covering them:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. 
> > I'm curious what you think of it.
> 
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading 
> the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent taken any 
> quizzes)? How do they get their keywording work into the tree?
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel

They don't have commit access (or any CVS access at all) but have taken
the ebuild quiz, the first dev quiz.  They have the ability to KEYWORD
bugs in bugzilla, that the only special ability they get (other than
voice in #-amd64-dev) currently.

Daniel
(former AT)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Stephen P. Becker]

> You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.

Wrong.

> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
> access.

My point exactly!  Why have another category?

> If the people involved decide they want to become committing
> devs, it also make it easier to make that transition.  If they don't
> want to commit, they can stay as an AT.

Then shall we reclassify all the developers that currently don't have 
commit access to the portage tree?

-Steve
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Nathan L. Adams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
> 
> 
> My point exactly!  Why have another category?

Because their role is *not* to develop, its to *test*.

>> If the people involved decide they want to become committing
>> devs, it also make it easier to make that transition.  If they don't
>> want to commit, they can stay as an AT.
> 
> Then shall we reclassify all the developers that currently don't have
> commit access to the portage tree?

No, *their* role is to be develop, not test.

To have or not to have commit access is not the question. To develop or
to test (and get recognized for it as well) is the question.

Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJiGw2QTTR4CNEQARAhZuAJ9BRRr+9baj3kAcEU1LrUr8AyjZPwCfbEt6
EzqISNCg69GwNNew2jJoYdM=
=kGey
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
> 
> 
> My point exactly!  Why have another category?
> 
>> If the people involved decide they want to become committing
>> devs, it also make it easier to make that transition.  If they don't
>> want to commit, they can stay as an AT.
> 
> 
> Then shall we reclassify all the developers that currently don't have
> commit access to the portage tree?
> 
> -Steve

And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?  It's
not a category per se, it's a role.  Person X does Devrel, person Y does
portage, you do Arch Developing on MIPS, and new dev Z is an Arch
Tester.  How does this make anything more difficult than it already is?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=S6q7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 701 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
wrote:
| And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?

Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:

Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment standards.

Stop confusing arch devs (who have commit access) with arch testers
(who do not have any formal powers other than being able to advise with
more authority than regular users). Arch testers may (and hopefully
will) become full arch developers later.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu>
> wrote:
> | And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?
> 
> Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
> 
> Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment standards.
> 
> Stop confusing arch devs (who have commit access) with arch testers
> (who do not have any formal powers other than being able to advise with
> more authority than regular users). Arch testers may (and hopefully
> will) become full arch developers later.
> 

The whole point of this GLEP is to make Arch Testers official Gentoo
Staff.  Giving them E-mail addresses, giving them read only CVS access,
etc.  Geoman is saying why give them different status at all, and is not
saying their status is lower than a "normal dev".

>> You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a >dev.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
>My point exactly!  Why have another category?

I'm not confusing anything here.  Arch Devs ( ala members of arch teams
) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer status.  All
should have E-mail, voting previleges, etc.  One role does not
explicitely require CVS write access ( Arch Tester ) and one role does (
Arch Teams ).  Geoman is talking about new categories when in fact it is
really just a new developer role.  Just as devrel is a role, which has
certain access that accompanies it, so will an Arch Tester.
> Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
>
> Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment standards.

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.

Experience Second:
Arch Testers are generally less experienced in other areas of being a
gentoo developer, the same as if taking someone from say QA and telling
them they have to file perfect patches to Portage or Catalyst.  Those
patches are going to either be long in coming or generally not high
quality until the developer learns about what they are working on.  No
one expects an Arch Tester to just grab commit access and commit things
to the tree.

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.

Recruiment Standards ( Long ):  Recruitment standards are generally set
on a Role by Role basis.  This is a problem only in that the requirement
to become a developer could be very low in one Role and allow the
developer to "hop" to another Role where they wreak havoc because they
lack experience in their new Role.  A contrived example would be a docs
dev who writes say, Klingon documentation, decides to manage a few
packages who have no maintainer.  He took the ebuild quiz 6 months ago
but generally doesn't know what he is doing.  Then he commits a bunch of
crappy ebuilds to the tree for his packages and generally causes trouble
with his work.

This type of deal is usually solved at a decent level by people in their
Role keeping track of developers who do work.  However sometimes this is
not done ( I think this is quite rare actually ) or in a more often
case, there is no one watching.  The Klingon Docs dev picks up some dead
packages, commits the bad changes, and no one is the wiser until things
break.  Perhaps this too could be solved by a peer review system of
changes, making it harder to commit an ebuild.  Maybe commiting doesn't
commit directly to CVS but instead commits to a peer-review section
where it must be reviewed and approved by a second developer in the
herd.  Of course that would never happen because no one has the time to
review all of the ebuilds.

Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by
herd/package/section than just "generic tree access".  Commiting
something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows
what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!).  The bad
part being when no one is around who has commit access.  A resolution
for this situation would need to be required.  Expections would need to
occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen from
time to time ).  However I'd like to see more input on things like this
( along with say, council approval? :) ).

Sorry about the long-winded recruitment bit ;)

- -Alec Warner (antarus)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=Ae5f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3149 bytes --]

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.

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.

| voting previleges

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.

| > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
| >
| > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment
| > standards.
| 
| 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.

An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same
length of time as a full developer.

| 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.

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...).

| Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by
| herd/package/section than just "generic tree access".  Commiting
| something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows
| what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!).  The bad
| part being when no one is around who has commit access.  A resolution
| for this situation would need to be required.  Expections would need
| to occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen
| from time to time ).  However I'd like to see more input on things
| like this ( along with say, council approval? :) ).

Take a look at the branches proposal that's been floating around. It's
basically what you suggested with fewer holes and a more realistic view
of how development gets done.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3652 bytes --]

Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to 
everything that follows from your email.

define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.

It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level 
as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.


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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> | voting previleges
> 
> 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.
> 
> | > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
> | >
> | > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment
> | > standards.
> | 
> | 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.
> 
> An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same
> length of time as a full developer.
> 
> | 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.
> 
> 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...).
> 
> | Personally I would rather see people's CVS commit access by
> | herd/package/section than just "generic tree access".  Commiting
> | something outside your Role becomes then contacting someone who knows
> | what they are doing and who can look over your work (good!).  The bad
> | part being when no one is around who has commit access.  A resolution
> | for this situation would need to be required.  Expections would need
> | to occur as well ( tree-wide commits, and other things that happen
> | from time to time ).  However I'd like to see more input on things
> | like this ( along with say, council approval? :) ).
> 
> Take a look at the branches proposal that's been floating around. It's
> basically what you suggested with fewer holes and a more realistic view
> of how development gets done.
> 
> -- 
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
> 


~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 666 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.

Repeated good contributions.

| It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same
| level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.

ATs are welcome to move onto the same level as ebuild devs. They can do
it by going through the usual recruitment process. Plus, their work as
an AT will put them at a considerable advantage here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Homer Parker]

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | voting previleges
> 
> 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.

	I don't remember that being asked for...

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5810 bytes --]

With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and 
explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move 
'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.
> 
> 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 != ebuild devs != ATs
They're different roles.  

Stop intermixing them, unless you're going to start throwing portage devs, 
doc devs, infra, and devrel in.

There _is_ a common subset to portage devs, arch devs, ebuild devs, and ATs, 
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 
you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by your 
previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please.


> | voting previleges
> 
> 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 
issues?  Portage devs?  Infra?

Your metric frankly is rather vague.  Come up with one applicable to 
AT's rather then vague terms impying AT's are not of the 'elite' 
ebuild dev standard please.

Additionally, Note that those proposing the glep utilize AT's in their 
arch; they may have a different view of role/ability of the AT's then 
you do, and of their abilities.

IOW, nail down your metric, then apply it to the existing AT's (since 
they are what we have to work with), and then re-raise your views that 
they "don't know what they're doing".

Back to the "complex technical issues", point I'm getting at is that 
the problem domain of both differ, even if they may have a common 
subset.


> | > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
> | >
> | > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment
> | > standards.
> | 
> | 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.
> 
> 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 
volunteers.  Further, stats provided (as were requested) I'd posit are 
actually better then ebuild dev stats, although worth noting the 
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.
> 
> 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 
what they've demonstrated, the work done.  Doesn't matter if it 
takes a person 20 hours, or 1, it's the end product people see, 
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 themselves".  
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 
they haven't shown some form of worth (this includes ability to stick 
around for more then a month).  Screwups happen, but the stats offered 
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 
period for conversion of an AT to an ebuild devs; the two roles (imo) 
are seperate, those handling ebuild devs should set the requirements 
themselves, just the same as those handling AT devs should set the 
requirements they perceive as needed.

My 2 cents?  They're doing work for gentoo.  They may, or may not want 
to become ebuild devs (that being they're choice, and decided by those 
handling ebuild devs).  Doesn't really matter, not everyone wants to 
be a pkg maintainer.

Treating contributors as second class citizens (in terms of cvs ro 
access and email) is a really great way to piss on people who are 
doing a good chunk of work for gentoo.

They *should* be provided better means of doing their work, and should 
be thrown the email addie as recognition for their contributions once 
they've met the common requirements of all gentoo personel (sticking 
around, contributing, etc).

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 957 bytes --]

Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy 
[Summary] thread.

There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than 
some other devs.  First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and 
even so, the whole point of this thing is to make development smoother.

Basically, if someone comes up to an arch tester and is like "I just put this 
in the tree and I think it works on amd64, can you test it for me?".  Said 
person has to wait an hour or so for rsync to propigate, which may be the 
time it takes to test the package.  That provides a roadblock to efficiency, 
not to mention you only get so many emerge --syncs before our rysnc servers 
happily ban you.

So in conclusion, I think the costs here (having more privileges) do not 
outweigh the benifits (having things tested for various archs within a 
reasonable time period).

My 2 $denomination_here

Chris White

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | voting previleges
> 
> 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.

Does that mean that all the Gentoo people who didn't take the ebuild quiz (which 
doesn't proove the understanding of complex technical issues very good anyway 
IMHO, but that's another issue) should not be allowed to vote?

> | > Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
> | >
> | > Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment
> | > standards.
> | 
> | 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.
> 
> An arch tester has not committed himself to the project for the same
> length of time as a full developer.

That's not true. The whole point is that our current ATs *don't want* to be 
developers but are willing to help us and are a great help to keep the tree up 
to date, and we think it's unfair to honor a dev who doesn't much but sending 
emails with a nice signature but treating the ATs as users where they do far 
more than said dev.

> 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...).

Yes, in theory. Too bad reality doesn't match with theory far too often. I for 
example became dev after just submitting a few "app-foo/bar works on amd64" bugs 
and moaning because it took too long to get them fixed. Of course i knew 
portage, but I really can't say that I have proven myself to be useful to the 
project when I joined it. BUT, this was before the idea of an AT existed. Today, 
every user who wants to become a amd64 developer, has to become AT first, to 
prove himself, so the problem you're speaking of was fixed, not caused by ATs.

Regards,
-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Homer Parker wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
>>| voting previleges
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> 	I don't remember that being asked for...

As the GLEP asks to make the ATs staff, it'd imply giving them voting privileges.

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Simon Stelling]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
> 
> Repeated good contributions.

Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who just 
asked for it. Normally, we note certain users filing many bugs (=useful 
contributions) and then we're going toward them to ask them whether they want to 
become ATs. Also, they have to pass the current dev quizzes before they become 
ATs, so the required knowledge *is* there.

So, basically, ATs already HAVE proven themselves to be useful.

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Luca Barbato]

Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>> | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
>>
>> Repeated good contributions.
> 
> 
> Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who 
> just asked for it. Normally, we note certain users filing many bugs 
> (=useful contributions) and then we're going toward them to ask them 
> whether they want to become ATs. Also, they have to pass the current dev 
> quizzes before they become ATs, so the required knowledge *is* there.
> 
> So, basically, ATs already HAVE proven themselves to be useful.
> 

Basically you are saying that they have the skill to be developers, they 
prove them, but they don't have enough time to become full developers?

lu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Luca Barbato wrote:
| Simon Stelling wrote:
|
|> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|>
|>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
|>> wrote:
|>> | define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
|>>
|>> Repeated good contributions.
|>
|>
|>
|> Just to clarify: We're not going around giving everybody AT-status who
|> just asked for it. Normally, we note certain users filing many bugs
|> (=useful contributions) and then we're going toward them to ask them
|> whether they want to become ATs. Also, they have to pass the current
|> dev quizzes before they become ATs, so the required knowledge *is* there.
|>
|> So, basically, ATs already HAVE proven themselves to be useful.
|>
|
| Basically you are saying that they have the skill to be developers, they
| prove them, but they don't have enough time to become full developers?
|
| lu
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."
If you take a more classical view, or at least acknowledge the fact that
everyone has the term "developer" in their title and discount this fact,
then no, they are no more "developers" than infra or docs or devrel.

When I started this project, I had in mind that all ATs would eventually
become devs, but it's never been a requirement.  Being an AT has many
advantages over being a dev in some peoples eyes.

Pros:
As it's not official, you don't need to go through devrel(which at the
time of inception was very slow)

You are sheltered from a lot of the political bullshit that "developers"
have to deal with.

The commitment isn't nearly as large in terms of time.  We mostly
recruit ATs from those active on IRC.  They already spend the time
testing and filing bugs, helping user, and so on.  It doesn't require a
great change in time to move from helpful user to AT.

It's a great training and recruiting tool.  A number of ATs have stated
that they don't feel they have the skills to be a developer.  This is a
statement that I would dispute in a number of cases.  However, after
being an active AT, you can't help but to learn how things work.  ATs
are encouraged to submit patches and solve problems.  The transition
from AT to dev is much less painful then if it was skipped.  ATs come
out of the program as knowledgeable people with a focus on testing.
Gentoo /needs/ more of these people.

And, most importantly, they get the feeling of satisfaction that comes
with learning and the knowledge that they have contributed.

Cons:
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.

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.

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.

Off topic, AMD64 requires that all new potential devs work as an AT for
the reasons stated above.  When they do make dev, they "hit the ground
running," and we don't need to invest anywhere near as much time as we
would without the program, nor are there any misconceptions about how we
operate.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
~                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
~   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJs9Z0K3RJaeXx6cRAj/XAKDJXKTeb4DsELKqC+EoOeLny1uRtQCfYx11
9a1/mby281fO6/0E6iTQAu0=
=/S6n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Wernfried Haas]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1249 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:21:22 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > 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...).
| 
| Yes, in theory. Too bad reality doesn't match with theory far too
| often. I for example became dev after just submitting a few
| "app-foo/bar works on amd64" bugs and moaning because it took too
| long to get them fixed. Of course i knew portage, but I really can't
| say that I have proven myself to be useful to the project when I
| joined it. BUT, this was before the idea of an AT existed. Today,
| every user who wants to become a amd64 developer, has to become AT
| first, to prove himself, so the problem you're speaking of was fixed,
| not caused by ATs.

Which is exactly why I like the idea of ATs, and exactly why I'm
against giving them in effect 'full dev minus cvs write' powers. That
can wait until they reach full dev status.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3633 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:39:31 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Each has a role, don't blur the AT definition into ebuild devs unless 
| you've after eliminating AT positions (something I doubt going by
| your previous QA threads); if you're after that, state so please.

Not at all. I'd like it much more if every new potential tree developer
had to go through a phase of being an AT (or an equivalent role for
doing ebuild development). It's a great way to find out whether people
are *really* going to be good as a developer.

| Your metric frankly is rather vague.  Come up with one applicable to 
| AT's rather then vague terms impying AT's are not of the 'elite' 
| ebuild dev standard please.

Bah, it's not elitism. It's a matter of experience.

| IOW, nail down your metric, then apply it to the existing AT's (since 
| they are what we have to work with), and then re-raise your views
| that they "don't know what they're doing".

Uh, that isn't my view. My view is that if they aren't yet experienced
enough to have tree commit access then they're not yet experienced
enough to vote.

This is entirely separate from other developer roles. There's more than
one way to become an experienced developer, some of which don't involve
touching the tree.

| > 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 
| volunteers.  Further, stats provided (as were requested) I'd posit
| are actually better then ebuild dev stats, although worth noting the 
| sampling period differs.

Try comparing it against the stats for the first month or two of every
ebuild dev.

| > 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 
| what they've demonstrated, the work done.  Doesn't matter if it 
| takes a person 20 hours, or 1, it's the end product people see, 
| and what ultimately matters (as you've pointed out in re: to QA).

There are times when being able to get something right *quickly* is
extremely important. Sometimes it makes no difference, sometimes it
does.

| Beyond that, I don't agreew with the "Arch testers haven't proven
| themselves". 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 they haven't shown some form of worth (this
| includes ability to stick around for more then a month).  Screwups
| happen, but the stats offered are a pretty good indication they've
| got that angle addressed imo.

The whole point of the AT role is that it's used as a kind of testing
ground for potential full developers. It's a way to get the benefit of
extra testers without having to commit to giving them tree access
straight away.

| Treating contributors as second class citizens (in terms of cvs ro 
| access and email) is a really great way to piss on people who are 
| doing a good chunk of work for gentoo.

Bah. By the same argument, why don't we give out @gentoo.org addresses
to anyone who ever files a bug report? Otherwise we're treating our
users as second class citizens!

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[Lares Moreau]

Does someone who is primarily working on (for arguents sake)
Translations does not nessessarily "know what they are doing" in terms
of overall gentoo dev.  My impression is that they have voting
privileges.  

My feeling is that people who know about TopicA will vote on things that
relate to that Topic and refrain from voting on things of which they
have little or no knowledge of.  SO why the big argument

Lares

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:22 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Homer Parker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > 
> >>| voting previleges
> >>
> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> > 	I don't remember that being asked for...
> 
> As the GLEP asks to make the ATs staff, it'd imply giving them voting privileges.
> 
> -- 
> Simon Stelling
> Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
> blubb@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

[R Hill]

Homer Parker wrote:
> 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.

I just wanted to say that this is exactly the situation i'm in.  I've 
applied to the x86 arch tester team because i enjoy working on Gentoo, 
but don't have a lot of time to do it in.  Work carts me about 100 miles 
from an internet connection every Monday and drops me back off in 
civilization every Friday.  Knock off another half-day spent trying to 
catch up on humongoloid GLEP threads and I don't have a bunch of free 
time left. ;]  Arch testing is one way I can contribute without the 
overhead, and I don't fancy becoming a developer any time soon.

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list