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 > > > 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)