From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A901381F3 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DB99E0ABC; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBC3E0AB1 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id Se0p1m02r2khLEN0Je0pW7; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:00:49 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:39 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Daunting developer process? (was Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting) 2013-09-10 Message-ID: <20130918155539.7d10ffc9@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20130918121828.GB10491@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> <1377796652.5477.15.camel@localhost> <1379258522.8240.3.camel@localhost> <523915A2.7090504@sporkbox.us> <20130918080219.GA22806@gentoo.org> <20130918121828.GB10491@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/.NGFhn0LbbHiuXgkioiOojj"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 1b6d12f9-ffb9-41da-9b12-702d4e7e9d13 X-Archives-Hash: e425d767c59be17cf5e89e03a0bc8c01 --Sig_/.NGFhn0LbbHiuXgkioiOojj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:18:28 +0100 "Steven J. Long" wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > Using a different approach to gain more developers might have more > > impact than you imagine on the quality of the distribution as well > > as the progress it makes. If the distribution would be 12 > > developers, it wouldn't be all that hard to make a good roadmap and > > focus areas. Twelve people can easily decide amongst each other > > what to do. But 200+ developers is a different ballgame (hence the > > need for "bureaucratic" things like the Gentoo Council) where > > decisions need to be weighted and where every individual can > > contribute (or block) to the progress of the distribution. > >=20 > > Imagine what would happen if we had 500+ developers.=20 >=20 > Thanks you for a wonderfully succinct explanation of the damage that > would be done if Gentoo developer status were awarded to people who > did not nderstand how to develop the end-product, eg: out of > deference to technical knowledge in other domains. Yes, the process that is in place is there to avoid people from rushing in only to be met with an unhappy community because they made some unintended change that doesn't meet earlier policy or consensus that is in place to avoid such damaging changes in the first place; we've had people ask for straight CVS access in the past (and even locked forum discussions) for just applying one ore another fix, but you guess how making a commit without knowing the context can lead to disasters. > Can I ask that you paste the whole text of your response into the > Gentoo docs site somewhere? This comes up so often, on the forums and > on IRC, it would help to have it where people will see it. Personally > I'd paste it at the top of the devmanual front-page, so giving > someone the link to that also ensures they are looking at it. Your > call, ofc. At verbatim at the top of the devmanual doesn't really look neat out of the context of this discussion, but I guess you didn't mean it to be exact; looking at what we already have in place I see this in the Developer Handbook [1]: The aim of this handbook is to outline Gentoo development policies, and make you, the developer, informed of policies, standards and procedures which Gentoo considers to be core values of our development system. And people are warned up front in the Ebuild policy [2]: Be cautious about what you commit. Remember that your commits can potentially harm thousands of users. If your commits cause any breakage in the tree, they must be fixed in a timely fashion. And in the Etiquette policy [3]: That doesn't mean that we expect you to follow this guide to the bullet point; nor do we expect you even agree with it - we do expect, however that all developers maintain reasonable standards of behaviour with our community - whether to other developers or users. However, you may be subject to sanctions or a suspension if a reasonable standard is not met. But I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be the "why" part to why people should read the Developer Handbook; but then one might wonder if such "why" part needs to be there in the first place, because if people aren't interested in reading (and thus following) any policies, then how can we expect them to not harm the community? If they question it, then I feel like it is fine to inform them why we expect them to follow the process; but telling them up front that not reading it causes harm feels like a negative connotation, which could scare people from contributing in the first place. For that reason, they actually do not detail the process too much; we want people to join with a positive mood that they learned something, not with "the process is lengthy and boring" or "wow, finally, meh". Looking back at it, most of us can be glad the process is in place. As for the Development Manual; I feel like we could refer [4] to the Developer Handbook so people that don't know about it could find it, but I don't think Developer Handbook information itself belongs there. [1]: Developer Handbook - Introduction http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3D1&chap= =3D1 [2]: Developer Handbook - Ebuild policy http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3D2&chap= =3D1 [3]: Developer Handbook - Etiquette policy http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3D2&chap= =3D2 [4]: GitHub Pull Request - Add a reference to Gentoo Developer Handbook https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org/pull/9 --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/.NGFhn0LbbHiuXgkioiOojj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSObDeAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9A9wH/R5wTnJMl6qyBAPHD1U19wUr 1XWQ7vJdZvb4ftsoHVd8jQIb0FGbMj1kFtHBW+9Zcj8t+nXOyeU9d+vdykepxHDG /hdDzbr2SrjIjZKp90sLsllEEATaDhOW7px+0s+1+RdfHFJNU1V5c/+d8yivQJo5 x9gSBIxG9mB8JYD4i8KE28qK9EXS4OJ3nEcu02TbmfykIC/E4BTueFBpF+pxTx2R UEWjPncNxAKOUjswQTnpEpwLsP/kG69AVJLGA++EtKh0G1/XAyTgkna4OL3Rdwt0 hzeVSDcGl2LOzytvp3xo7xrJmj6oHfP67V6uoVruUglWMknQlwxDb680m+PQ6aM= =qBFO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/.NGFhn0LbbHiuXgkioiOojj--