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 07133138334 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 00:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE535E095A; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 00:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (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 24527E0958 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 00:21:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id l7so451179ljg.6 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:21:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UEyh6cakO9k4+VPRw7oNL6yDp5FQgtmNz8R9n62D2T8=; b=vALS66ilAy73uWW4Kvi0q9jS+eC3NMQHeZgDyftz1UmD0AHb2eGbLOl3dI8YNPc0Fe DFeJuMp2A5Kt+SgIS5+Z86njOM05ClDBIZctnfNVGMcGTbvwNIlhJCE0N5cgwvdvhjR7 NFV6atGsPkeVqY6ktJLHy367YjXu5+VbRbuwy4rR8jMoKGe1gRMKN8aefcmrqFymBWVo vQZyLcm7wS9n4QbWxUpSbfQYQzXiuDt9p9TIErGOK1WyT1nuFjsniELpo5V/EZEy16FQ IyfXy8eLBusw3JC12LYtE0H4Yh06AgKAtRKRKncpyKdgr//mALE+PAwS63yQRKPXI5hI 2MkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UEyh6cakO9k4+VPRw7oNL6yDp5FQgtmNz8R9n62D2T8=; b=ZFDq2GW1/BHoTzFFQxGBsrIn2XHB578wLIRl9qgfVLyix/f6OCFKbc0iB9PKWCGyMe fFzXyrJvshSJcuDrNH2m1ej7OAIKTlc+h9+LbYpSVCxi8flsgdPBNgpaNmzJWByadDzz Kt/PC+Xwijk/aSU50ipl/RXcvkd0qurY6avZO4Ou7b40Wa988iaIs5ddteUsxxfngjaX llOwlhWxQSFiS97lc3kfVI/9yOrW2oW1CPX/ldbQSX+v2Dr0MBoYI5kEYJdAA+R+M9Xi v9pEy571I8JmGAOVpq8duaCn6mRdMaLf2k5UcPSna/8TDvn0qvAbxpY0UHeI1yC+oiKr fveg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVMU28nKK1nFLiRhjBh7RdX+tWQVuVHmf4DuUZ7NHr2IJqrQNdZ 8P3mc6u9vwom9zDAaWC1+uxHmXAM7tCmUjL1ekLJIq51LJs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8+T9+H0DIGBJGuwh9FSskJVnMGcHkhuaaa5qUdJom1iIjz5PqyrPDGLYx3MyqD3y3OBOdIOAn5I+uMVqDIt4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a14:: with SMTP id f20mr1537764ljc.65.1554337269051; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:21:09 -0700 (PDT) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190401032055.GA9497@linux1.home> <4bbfc34f-335f-5521-310a-b66ffd0d9a9a@gentoo.org> <5e30d658-80c8-b608-1505-dc08db3625bf@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:20:58 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2019-04-14 To: NP-Hardass Cc: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c88a150585a958fc" X-Archives-Salt: 46d13aab-a031-405f-bb7a-dd1ed5945847 X-Archives-Hash: db88086bde884cba41843a01a6be918d --000000000000c88a150585a958fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:05 PM Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Hardass wrote: > >> On 4/3/19 8:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM NP-Hardass > > > wrote: >> > >> > On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > two weeks from today (2019-04-14) the Gentoo Council will meet at >> > > 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode. >> > > >> > > Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to >> > put on >> > > the agenda to discuss or vote on. >> > > >> > > Thanks much, >> > > >> > > William >> > > >> > >> > I'd like the council to discuss the issue and general trend of >> actions >> > (particularly recent) to restrict the ability of developers to >> > contribute to Gentoo. In my view, efforts are being made to make >> > contributions as users substantially easier, while efforts are being >> > made to make being a developer substantially harder. The months of >> > studying, quiz taking, and interviews set a bar that should make >> > contributions from those individuals that become developers easier >> than >> > the average user, not more difficult. >> > >> > >> > This is a pretty vague statement, are there particular things you want >> > the council to review; or just the 'general trend'? >> > I'm not aware of any recent changes to the developer onboarding process. >> > >> > -A >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > NP-Hardass >> > >> >> Not just the onboarding, but the retention too. General trend is what >> I'm proposing should be discussed publicly during the meeting. >> >> Three points: >> >> At present time, everyone needs a "Real Name" to contribute. A user, >> with a new email address, can allege to be "Foo Bar" and contribute >> without impediment, but, as recent proposals would have it, developers >> would need to show proof of ID over video call to become part of the web >> of trust for committing. That effectively allows any user to remain >> anonymous by using a false name, obviating a huge portion of the alleged >> benefit to requiring names in the first place. So, developers can be >> held to such a high standard that they can either no longer contribute, >> while we trim eligible pool of new developers and compare that to the >> ease with which any "named" contributor on github or bugzilla can do as >> they please. >> > > I think it is reasonable to try to pursue a more inclusive policy where > identity is more flexible (as I discussed in a different message on this > thread), but keep in mind the Council (and really a few key members) spent > over a year working on the policy we have; so I'm not certain its a trivial > change. You are free to dislike the policy we have and you are free to > suggest we pursue a more inclusive policy, but at least here as a trustee > who voted for it we made a deliberate choice here and barring some middle > ground where we somehow understand that contributions to Gentoo are done in > a low-risk way, we will continue to reject commits from obvious > contributors. > Er, not obvious contributors, but contributors committing obvious violations of the policy, sorry ;) -A > > What I refuse to engage in is an incessant debate about the policy we > have; please accept that we made it in good faith to reduce legal risk for > the project and, if an alternative is presented that keeps risk low while > accepting a broader set of contributions we will consider it in the same > good faith. > > -A > > >> We currently have a RFC, just posted two days ago, for developers to be >> regularly tested to maintain commit status. Again, if the developer >> feels like it, maybe it is easier for him/her to just become a plain old >> user and submit patches, waiting on the (as I see it, dwindling,) amount >> of active other developers ready to commit instead. >> >> Totally anecdotal, I've seen developers that have fairly decent QA on >> their own commits merge PRs from users without full review and >> introducing a whole host of issues because code from users isn't always >> vetted as thoroughly as ones own work. So, I'd argue, the QA standards >> of being a dev don't quite apply to you as stringently once you >> downgrade to being a user... >> >> At the end of the day, holding developers to higher standards than users >> is a given, but it shouldn't be more onerous to be a developer than to >> be a user contributing. >> >> -- >> NP-Hardass >> >> --000000000000c88a150585a958fc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:05 PM Alec W= arner <antarus@gentoo.org> = wrote:


On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Hardass &l= t;NP-Hardass@gen= too.org> wrote:
On 4/3/19 8:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org
> <mailto:= NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Hi all,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> two weeks from today (2019-04-14) the Gentoo C= ouncil will meet at
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on fr= eenode.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Please reply to this message with any items yo= u would like us to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0put on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> the agenda to discuss or vote on.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Thanks much,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> William
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I'd like the council to discuss the issue and g= eneral trend of actions
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(particularly recent) to restrict the ability of de= velopers to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0contribute to Gentoo.=C2=A0 In my view, efforts are= being made to make
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0contributions as users substantially easier, while = efforts are being
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0made to make being a developer substantially harder= .=C2=A0 The months of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0studying, quiz taking, and interviews set a bar tha= t should make
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0contributions from those individuals that become de= velopers easier than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the average user, not more difficult.
>
>
> This is a pretty vague statement, are there particular things you want=
> the council to review; or just the 'general trend'?
> I'm not aware of any recent changes to the developer onboarding pr= ocess.
>
> -A
> =C2=A0
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0NP-Hardass
>

Not just the onboarding, but the retention too.=C2=A0 General trend is what=
I'm proposing should be discussed publicly during the meeting.

Three points:

At present time, everyone needs a "Real Name" to contribute.=C2= =A0 A user,
with a new email address, can allege to be "Foo Bar" and contribu= te
without impediment, but, as recent proposals would have it, developers
would need to show proof of ID over video call to become part of the web of trust for committing.=C2=A0 That effectively allows any user to remain anonymous by using a false name, obviating a huge portion of the alleged benefit to requiring names in the first place. So, developers can be
held to such a high standard that they can either no longer contribute,
while we trim eligible pool of new developers and compare that to the
ease with which any "named" contributor on github or bugzilla can= do as
they please.

I think it is reasonable t= o try to pursue a more inclusive policy where identity is more flexible (as= I discussed in a different message on this thread), but keep in mind the C= ouncil (and really a few key members) spent over a year working on the poli= cy we have; so I'm not certain its a trivial change. You are free to di= slike the policy we have and you are free to suggest we pursue a more inclu= sive policy, but at least here as a trustee who voted for it we made a deli= berate choice here and barring some middle ground where we somehow understa= nd that contributions to Gentoo are done in a low-risk way, we will continu= e to reject commits from obvious contributors.

Er, not obvious contributors, but contributors commit= ting obvious violations of the policy, sorry ;)

-A=
=C2=A0

What I refuse= to engage in is an incessant debate about the policy we have; please accep= t that we made it in good faith to reduce legal risk for the project and, i= f an alternative is presented that keeps risk low while accepting a broader= set of contributions we will consider it in the same good faith.

-A


We currently have a RFC, just posted two days ago, for developers to be
regularly tested to maintain commit status.=C2=A0 Again, if the developer feels like it, maybe it is easier for him/her to just become a plain old user and submit patches, waiting on the (as I see it, dwindling,) amount of active other developers ready to commit instead.

Totally anecdotal, I've seen developers that have fairly decent QA on their own commits merge PRs from users without full review and
introducing a whole host of issues because code from users isn't always=
vetted as thoroughly as ones own work.=C2=A0 So, I'd argue, the QA stan= dards
of being a dev don't quite apply to you as stringently once you
downgrade to being a user...

At the end of the day, holding developers to higher standards than users is a given, but it shouldn't be more onerous to be a developer than to<= br> be a user contributing.

--
NP-Hardass

--000000000000c88a150585a958fc--