From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 245501382C5 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17787E08DA; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:19:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A36E08D9 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89BDF335C8D; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 07:19:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1523690387.1482.0.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:19:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180414065737.pkhjgvby3xtbd7gn@gentoo.org> References: <1523640697.5139.2.camel@gentoo.org> <20180414065737.pkhjgvby3xtbd7gn@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 0bd4fa51-a39e-4efc-a01d-e4aaff0fb678 X-Archives-Hash: 70ef507ea3cbd25bc3ccbd85721d6e86 W dniu sob, 14.04.2018 o godzinie 01∶57 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode napisał: > On 18-04-13 19:31:37, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here's a quick pre-GLEP for review. It's a supplement to GLEP 39 that > > defines who Gentoo Developer is (GLEP 39 mentions devs a lot but doesn't > > say who they are). Alike 39, it's purely information -- it doesn't > > state a policy, just notes the status quo. It is also minimal > > and focuses on linking the policies of relevant teams. > > > > Please review. > > > > --- > > GLEP: 76 > > Title: Gentoo Developer status > > Author: Michał Górny > > Type: Informational > > Status: Draft > > Version: 1 > > Created: 2018-04-11 > > Last-Modified: 2018-04-13 > > Post-History: > > Content-Type: text/x-rst > > Requires: 39 > > Replaces: > > --- > > > > Abstract > > ======== > > > > This GLEP aims to supplement GLEP 39 [#GLEP39]_ with the definition > > of *Gentoo Developer*. It shortly indicates the policies relevant > > to obtaining, preserving and revoking the Developer status. > > > > > > Motivation > > ========== > > > > Most of Gentoo's metastructure is explained in GLEP 39 [#GLEP39]_. > > However, while this GLEP is focused around Gentoo Developers, it does > > not define whom they precisely are. It lacks a clear statement of how > > new developers are recruited, and for how long they hold the developer > > status. > > > > The ‘status quo’ can be found across different Gentoo websites. > > The recruitment procedure (from user perspective) is described > > on the main site [#BECOME-A-DEV]_. The Recruiters [#RECRUITERS]_, > > Undertakers [#UNDERTAKERS]_ and Community Relation [#COMREL]_ teams > > provide their relevant policies. However, there seems to be no single > > document binding all of them together. This GLEP aims to be precisely > > that. > > > > > > Specification > > ============= > > > > A *Gentoo Developer* is a person who has successfully passed > > the recruitment procedure (as defined at the time of his/her joining) > > and is actively contributing to Gentoo Linux in one or both > > of the following areas: > > > > 1. Gentoo ebuild maintenance (either individual or through a project); > > with activity being determined through the official Gentoo repository > > commits. > > > > 2. Contributing to the present Gentoo projects [#PROJECTS]_; with > > activity being determined at the discretion of project leads. > > > > The admission of new Developers is done by the *Recruiters* project > > [#RECRUITERS]_ upon asserting that the candidate has the necessary > > skills and motivation to actively contribute to Gentoo as outlined > > above, provided recent contributions to the specified areas. The exact > > policies and procedures are specified by the Recruiters project. > > > > The removal of Developers is done by the *Undertakers* project > > [#UNDERTAKERS]_. The Developer status can be revoked in one > > of the following conditions: > > > > - on an explicit request from the Developer himself/herself, > > > > - upon determining that the Developer is no longer actively contributing > > to Gentoo, > > > > - as a result of disciplinary action taken by the *Community Relations* > > project [#COMREL]_ or another explicitly authorized entity. > > > > The exact policies and procedures are specified by the Undertakers > > project. > > > > > > Rationale > > ========= > > > > This GLEP does not introduce any new policies but merely attempts to > > document the current standing practices. It aims to supplement GLEP 39 > > [#GLEP39]_ with the details necessary to understand who Gentoo > > Developers are, in context of the metastructure defined there. > > It does not mean to replace or thoroughly copy the relevant policies. > > > > Only the details deemed most important and relevant are listed: > > explanation whom Gentoo Developers are, what are their responsibilities, > > what are the requirements for recruiting them and the possibilities of > > their retirement. The teams responsible for handling both of those > > processes and defining the detailed policies are explicitly indicated. > > > > The specific policy details were intentionally left out to avoid having > > to perform frequent updates to this GLEP. This includes the exact > > procedures, ``repo/gentoo`` commit access, devaway system, etc. > > > > > > References > > ========== > > > > .. [#GLEP39] GLEP 39: An "old-school" metastructure proposal with "boot > > for being a slacker" > > (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html) > > > > .. [#BECOME-A-DEV] Become a developer - Gentoo Linux > > (https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/become-developer/) > > > > .. [#RECRUITERS] Project:Recruiters - Gentoo Wiki > > (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Recruiters) > > > > .. [#UNDERTAKERS] Project:Undertakers - Gentoo Wiki > > (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Undertakers) > > > > .. [#COMREL] Project:ComRel - Gentoo Wiki > > (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ComRel) > > > > .. [#PROJECTS] Project:Gentoo - Gentoo Wiki > > (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Gentoo) > > > > > > Copyright > > ========= > > This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > > 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. > > > > I'm not sure a new GLEP is the proper place for this. Since it seems to > be refining GLEP 39, (defining membership). So would probably be best > placed as an ammendment to it. I think I generally supportive of > defining developership though, so I don't want to discourage this. > I was thinking of that as well. However, given the 'core' importance of GLEP 39, I didn't want to modify it. Also a separate GLEP makes it easier to clearly define rationale and motivation. -- Best regards, Michał Górny