From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-8688-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 675A7138334
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B2ADE0982;
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-lf1-x142.google.com (mail-lf1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::142])
(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 89E87E0972
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-x142.google.com with SMTP id d12so14867417lfk.6
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:32:11 -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;
bh=pCsrJSyaqhvK5TOnPr6ONY6JDXibyqsZ5vm3FswOc4Q=;
b=zqrxQFmJJIY+9XKrN50kkJdB2Nqa/oDmVLsFDKzdXkUTYvkM+T7wslaIwRKEN/EvHI
EW5l7vRHG26nhuzigH+BeZeSZVa7lsQQmj4iIv9+/oZBIWTkbbpUouV8ET4+gE9QHmfq
22uAOYUpxiHjxgYBP03DcRgIm6XdDR0hx2/Gn0BG0YaKD7Bysboud5CPR8JRg5rX4MeU
Og1V55kyU7YEKfse8i8PFzhgFtBuGHIaAsys7wWQoa/qGatIfHAAPkXV8TAgVJc78Wsp
7nBOd2cZ5ZbtAb7XHZpQWmrnNYceiz/YehSYnamW/oi/GfuY4QtY2QMKn4mFMoHUe+Nq
d4sg==
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;
bh=pCsrJSyaqhvK5TOnPr6ONY6JDXibyqsZ5vm3FswOc4Q=;
b=Cb0q3nDtNj35C/wjQgczFm8IPgnhkNexwZnfHmbgocklCq40l5tYOeOuVuZuguroVG
NXbnwZyFktbX0VtUVJmKh1YG5XSKV67RDp2zMLu7MW7KdcgKsNy4l8ZPico3jy+PyUln
MA424snf5AAT75FSNFBwC62McjvjRUfrtakN9+NlO/u2h/lh4yB4Yk+HP4+j9oXggjXs
bAL37FkdQj7b1C00yg47Mpd4R+GU5ESoHahAz+23ZHIc6I2xEUecnztKL/ZCDeuJjjYp
H9egwJH22bKqRGbah+l+liGywbERMUpzVWDO+Hu8QX4msrRFelqRGyaHbhx4ev/BbrNr
ehOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWHVzWyM67dAhMzHL71QGbSMJOv8r190XMCTkRkbRSdSReNKbX4
X6ixAPDw0bbL93/KCZYyEGDyn64yNLGUOFX86ivtBxPWH3o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzs9RuCktzZtgSereIRGCwPzV7BqhyIq5gocBbspzjwNQ4/ZhYx1iTBINqreDZ9WDIbU6yB/uZDh2I5K5LGdDk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:428c:: with SMTP id p134mr18495022lfa.108.1556116328775;
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
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: <20190412144043.5010-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <20190412161039.GA14134@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org>
<20190412161946.GB14134@whubbs1.dev.av1.gaikai.org> <86439695-e7fa-fa11-31f8-71440c8e73ea@gentoo.org>
<CAAr7Pr96CA3OV_mU8faWzqBtdLsx++ofgovm3eU_73Y4OTAp0g@mail.gmail.com> <b430f0560530102af2b13d3ef996b937ddb102a0.camel@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <b430f0560530102af2b13d3ef996b937ddb102a0.camel@gentoo.org>
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:31:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr-m8sTeaSt8Kdad-c5yeL39Cn_dt9yANEREcYEwJx=p5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [PATCH] glep-0048: Provide clear rules for
disciplinary actions
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000019bd1058747914e"
X-Archives-Salt: 3a8e4d8f-dd78-43c6-9bd5-158937267491
X-Archives-Hash: 65bae0241f3562014f9a2bebee709802
--000000000000019bd1058747914e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:31 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> =
wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 17:35 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > I don't think committers who violate policy will be changed by a ban.
> > Certainly not a ban that is time-delimited (it means I get a 2 week
> gentoo
> > vacation!) I'd consider alternatives like:
> > - A period where the commits need review.
>
> Who is going to do the reviewing? Do you really believe we have
> manpower for that? Should QA be effectively punished by a lot of extra
> work by developers who do bad stuff?
>
I didn't propose who would review. I've seen these systems work in practice=
:
- A rotation where a given human is assigned to review stuff over a period
(typically 1w.) This probably works better in an organization with more
fixed time schedules and employees; I wouldn't propose it for Gentoo.
- A mentor system where you explicitly assign mentors for folks who need
help. Gentoo does some of this already.
- A system where there are a pool of reviewers, and a robot assigns
(pretty randomly) who reviews what. Gentoo does some of this too.
All of these require staffing, I agree. You rightly ask "is this work worth
it?" and I discuss more of this below.
>
> I would like to remind we had a developer like that once, and reviewing,
> retraining, etc. did not help at all. He just wasted a lot of time from
> a lot of people, and removal was the only solution that actually worked.
>
I'm sad that we had that kind of experience.
>
> It's easy to talk when you invent work for others to do.
>
QA is work for others to do (its by definition a minimum standard we
require people to meet.) The point isn't that "we should not make work for
others" but instead that we should convince others the work has value. Most
of the project believes QA has value because they want to take pride in
their work and help others use the software they maintain, and use Gentoo
in a useful way; having a minimum quality bar enables this goal. This
mentorship is also extra work (as you note) and I think its worth it
because I think its a good goal for the project to have more contributors,
specifically since "not enough manpower" is a common complaint, and so I
see training and mentorship as a way to grow the contributor base. This
means I favor keeping people instead of removing them. So for contributors
who make many mistakes:
- Talking to them about why the mistakes were made
- Improving the tools to detect and prevent the mistakes
- Offering training for things that are confusing
Its guaranteed some people will not respond to any of the above and they
just can't meet the QA standard set, and those people should not have
commit access (to your point above) but I'm not sure everyone who makes
mistakes falls into that category.
To conclude: I think we should remove people as a last resort, but I think
we should be deliberate when we do it and that means more talking to
individuals. I think so much of this is one sided (QA team decides
arbitrarily) rather than trying to understand why people are not following
the policy and trying to fix it; much of my proposals focus on that part
because I think its more valuable to train and keep contributors, rather
than to remove people who don't meet our QA bar.
-A
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
>
>
--000000000000019bd1058747914e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:31 AM Micha=C5=
=82 G=C3=B3rny <<a href=3D"mailto:mgorny@gentoo.org" target=3D"_blank">m=
gorny@gentoo.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 17:35 -040=
0, Alec Warner wrote:<br>
> I don't think committers who violate policy will be changed by a b=
an.<br>
> Certainly not a ban that is time-delimited (it means I get a 2 week ge=
ntoo<br>
> vacation!) I'd consider alternatives like:<br>
>=C2=A0 - A period where the commits need review.<br>
<br>
Who is going to do the reviewing?=C2=A0 Do you really believe we have<br>
manpower for that?=C2=A0 Should QA be effectively punished by a lot of extr=
a<br>
work by developers who do bad stuff?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I =
didn't propose who would review. I've seen these systems work in pr=
actice:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0- A rotation where a given human is =
assigned to review stuff over a period (typically 1w.) This probably works =
better in an organization with more fixed time schedules and employees; I w=
ouldn't propose it for Gentoo.</div><div>=C2=A0- A mentor system where =
you explicitly assign mentors for folks who need help. Gentoo does some of =
this already.</div><div>=C2=A0- A system where there are a pool of reviewer=
s, and a robot assigns (pretty randomly) who reviews what. Gentoo does some=
of this too.</div><div><br></div><div>All of these require staffing, I agr=
ee. You rightly ask "is this work worth it?" and I discuss more o=
f this below.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">
<br>
I would like to remind we had a developer like that once, and reviewing,<br=
>
retraining, etc. did not help at all.=C2=A0 He just wasted a lot of time fr=
om<br>
a lot of people, and removal was the only solution that actually worked.<br=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm sad that we had that kind of expe=
rience.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:=
1ex"><br>
It's easy to talk when you invent work for others to do.<br></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>QA is work for others to do (its by definition a mini=
mum standard we require people to meet.) The point isn't that "we =
should not make work for others" but instead that we should convince o=
thers the work has value. Most of the project believes QA has value because=
they want to take pride in their work and help others use the software the=
y maintain, and use Gentoo in a useful way; having a minimum quality bar en=
ables this goal. This mentorship is also extra work (as you note) and I thi=
nk its worth it because I think its a good goal for the project to have mor=
e contributors, specifically since "not enough manpower" is a com=
mon complaint, and so I see training and mentorship as a way to grow the co=
ntributor base. This means I favor keeping people instead of removing them.=
So for contributors who make many mistakes:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=
=A0- Talking to them about why the mistakes were made</div><div>=C2=A0- Imp=
roving the tools to detect and prevent the mistakes</div><div>=C2=A0- Offer=
ing training for things that are confusing</div><div><br></div><div>Its gua=
ranteed some people will not respond to any of the above and they just can&=
#39;t meet the QA standard set, and those people should not have commit acc=
ess (to your point above) but I'm not sure everyone who makes mistakes =
falls into that category.</div><div><br></div><div>To conclude: I think we =
should remove people as a last resort, but I think we should be deliberate =
when we do it and that means more talking to individuals. I think so much o=
f this is one sided (QA team decides arbitrarily) rather than trying to und=
erstand why people are not following the policy and trying to fix it; much =
of my proposals focus on that part because I think its more valuable to tra=
in and keep contributors, rather than to remove people who don't meet o=
ur QA bar.</div><div><br></div><div>-A</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
-- <br>
Best regards,<br>
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
--000000000000019bd1058747914e--