Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08

["Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/06/2014 11:10 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> On 06/04/14 15:47, hasufell wrote:
>> Andreas K. Huettel:
>>> 5) The council encourages teams maintaining central parts of Gentoo
>>> to accept new developers as team members and teach them the
>>> required knowledge and intricacies. We consider this important to
>>> ensure long-term continuity and increase the bus factor in critical
>>> areas.
>>
>>
>> Or don't accept them as team members in the first place, which is
>> perfectly fine if you can still contribute as a non-team member.
> 
> I agree, new developers shouldn't be allowed in the QA team, there
> should be some 5 year limit
> at least as safe kludge to avoid disrespect like this:
> 
> #gentoo-qa, yesterday:
> 
> 21:37 <@Zero_Chaos> floppym: honestly there are a few "senior" gentoo
> developers which could be shot in the head for all I care.

I fully stand by my statements.  There are a few senior developers who
feel they can do whatever they like.  They ignore policy, revert things
others have done to improve gentoo, or otherwise make major changes
without consulting anyone.  Since this statement was made in the context
of a similar discussion about "senior" developers I'd like to add that
it's not just one person, nor is it just senior developers who have this
issue.  The big difference is that the newer developers often respond to
a polite "please stop reverting changes" while the "senior" developers
think they are god's immortal gifts to gentoo and above reproach.

To anyone that thinks they can do whatever they like, all the time, no
matter what policy they are breaking, know that will not abide.

Thanks,
Zero_Chaos

PS>  Incidentally, this comment actually wasn't even about you, if you
go back and check the context you can probably plainly see that.  But of
course that is neither here nor there.
> 
> #gentoo-qa, today:
> 
> 09:16 <@xiaomiao> if you don't ... well ... one dev more or less isn't
> *that* much difference, we can deal with it
> 09:17 <@xiaomiao> blah policy ... it took me months just to get PMS
> fixed with a two-line patch
> 
> Publicly stating he doesn't care about policies, I read that as only
> caring about his personal opinion and then,
> abusing the powers gained from the membership.
> 
>> Letting someone in and then starting to teach him seems like the wrong
>> approach to me.
>>
>> We should encourage the opposite order.
> 
> I agree. Specially when some of the new developers who gain a QA
> membership think it elevates them into higher
> platform than others who have been involved for years, making them
> stubborn, in a way they don't listen to others.
> 
> I didn't want to send this mail, but I felt I had to, because this has
> gone too far.
> 
> - Samuli
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=jvZk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----