Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status

[Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6614 bytes --]

On 18-04-14 09:19:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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 <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> > > 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.
> 

Another reason, one that I should have said previously, is that I think
this is important enought to invoke a full dev vote (it is defining the
electorate for the council afterall).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]