From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-nfp+bounces-2228-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E6BC138334 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5C14E09D9; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF5CE09D9 for <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon_Static) by smarthost03d.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>) id 1i6NcB-0002g6-V8 for gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:26:04 +0000 Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 00:25:33 +0100 From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs' To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <52090ee2-28ee-8a98-b2ca-53433156b7fb@veremit.xyz> (from gentoo@veremit.xyz on Fri Sep 6 17:48:16 2019) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.5.6 Message-Id: <2VJ5WFOZ.E6ENNR3W.TVHMCN6U@REM4A725.4CEEVXEI.UOMJ6HVZ> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-nfp+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-nfp.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7TDRIi13azmqInKpMgdf" X-Originating-smarthost03d-IP: [62.3.120.142] Feedback-ID: 62.3.120.142 X-Archives-Salt: 0291a0b8-12bd-48e5-bb2f-42a52379dd1d X-Archives-Hash: 85291cd9f67feb1b12f58fd82f3a30c1 --=-7TDRIi13azmqInKpMgdf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019.09.06 17:48, Michael Everitt wrote: > On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson > <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > >>>>> 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not really > indicate > >>>>> any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has done the > minimal > >>>>> effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to conflate > the two. > >>>> I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I > don't see very > >>>> many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking > people if they > >>>> are interested[0]" > >>> - Does involvement on mailing lists count? > >>> - What other ways outside development might somebody be involved > in > >>> Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild > developer. > >>> What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all, but > loved > >>> to talk about Gentoo? > >> Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access. If somebody > is > >> doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a > >> developer. Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz. > > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software". > > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other > > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc, genkernel, > > catalyst, eselect are some of them. > > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds. > > > > I need to distinguish between: > > - ebuild coding contribution > > - non-ebuild-coding contribution > > - non-coding contribution > > > >> Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer. > >> > >> We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be > considered > >> "staff" is now considered a "developer." > > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we > were > > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than > > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions > above, > > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was > down-voted > > at the time. > > > Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle > move > for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and > management > of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is > something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall leave > as > an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth > highlighting. >=20 Compare the numbers of staffers to developers. Its not really surprising that developers fill most of the "control=20 and management" roles in the distro. There have been staffers on both the council and trustees. In my view, your observation is both correct and not=20 statistically significant. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64= --=-7TDRIi13azmqInKpMgdf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEsOrcx0gZrrCMwJzo/xJODTqpeT4FAl1y6u4ACgkQ/xJODTqp eT5fHwf/QSL0Nvs+5arP2FQILQCrRDLm8hTzbjo6pc5h/z6ietNS3Dmw4jsNJYR+ MWVhdBWYBZvuF/JiJCna/1uGe2h25d/lqPh+ra/hvIUB50acuLYIlY6f2HdMU6Ic LW0Qa0sCWxsCgwATs5Uyl6tvggZU4fYb4NcQQUlyeAf6m7Bw8G23g6N+G3f2GiZY +u/y2MxcTjTM3Em0ZRDOtMQjvsEIpEDxdRmnkzhzmdZ6D0iePau9xMzCxjw/auH8 APAMR+w1B4ZnISfiJtmcsjC2rwj688iRxxOxAHrgPz5i0LcVaW5mSsP22HWs+z/N D38qfZ/aDE4mJHVaHmOvysJcSENlFQ== =PXMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7TDRIi13azmqInKpMgdf--