On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.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:
> >
> >     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.

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
>
>