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 967DC138334 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 486A8E098A; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 B3D41E01E4 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v22so329054lje.9 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:05:24 -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=tKwSK1FOqTK1/8D6aYACH+yD3sDRbhvHjz2ZbqS1AqA=; b=XkIM0ceJtyigPf7Sszyb8ajavCMJhXi8ktuEEQ2Jj2Tmf+tX7Y3E1iapVWpOQH8edr Zg60Waz6LHKNUkqaGYtFURKPketccAM2Bw2wRNi1KE63z0dZMGfM5qyt1dNaeXGpOCBo IuDVCC6a7Wh78pOrmvgkADMNInIrpDYR9E+/Ak40OBJdvdNh9ycDMuRc1xas+Cr7hRAu dSBVjprcKvgvyZdGh/IJszb9Tp5yuncm/ktNeiEDaNo1+rJhQwYCiHKU+gd9FBc+4un4 z1x4txxNeqZsOG7ppqVddt9OururKYvGJ7C29IHu7sTMHmHH/GzxnlvzrCDTMl4Mgwl2 twKg== 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=tKwSK1FOqTK1/8D6aYACH+yD3sDRbhvHjz2ZbqS1AqA=; b=UhL0Kaa6qep+Cdz4IJzJZEhedUqnGyK1YG/PLWFGes9akhVadMZAOvEzz8MZ5Jtf56 E1yRvY51w4vh7G816ylihLgTu2yU25h7W/naBbEihWB22L9x/LI3PQco1LvbwNKnomV0 FvwkPibM7qkyIJZgwOv4ovVj+H6W5dluTGjwkjvVwmuuT/oWTh8vW8lh813ifvyYFFjw e7I0q1ipb7O6msAvbEtxWXA3zA+C/gxN5P9to0fP36rODJ0v7RRLREnjKmH3GilSqm0j UhaTEtO3cboXOaRSXzpOzZ2M7eVNxzguJbqStZhImx4PB8y70FMdUPfl21m5BB+vCGKz oZWA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW6iRgnOpT5GAynclJKehcIRCLOsfSCGDJl5dtSqIUQiNceP90o iMkQkQDhMhrM0hY2q+xjeNWDgKKLY+h61mOu9DnAncy4 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4XrvHcIJIIWyu84gLK9ObCL8jHjRK3tI7pDDeqEA8bbAWllWPP0trp3udDwBYtLKLovm2R9lPUD4xSm2OW0Y= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5bcc:: with SMTP id m73mr1340737lje.100.1554332722759; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:05:22 -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: <5e30d658-80c8-b608-1505-dc08db3625bf@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:05:11 -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="000000000000cda60e0585a84943" X-Archives-Salt: c5d6ddea-f807-4277-8853-81aebec5d2f5 X-Archives-Hash: 94558ff5b4e653bfe243d772488a4671 --000000000000cda60e0585a84943 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. 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 > > --000000000000cda60e0585a84943 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM NP-Ha= rdass <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:
>
>=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.

Wha= t I refuse to engage in is an incessant debate about the policy we have; pl= ease accept that we made it in good faith to reduce legal risk for the proj= ect 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.=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

--000000000000cda60e0585a84943--