Re: [gentoo-project] pre-GLEP: Gentoo Developer status

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Here are some randomly picked tasks that don't require belonguing to a
> project:
> * Keeping the documentation on the wiki up to date and clear.

Wiki project

> * Writting new, relevant documentation.

That seems redundant with the wiki, since that is where we keep our docs.

> * Helping address users concerns over one of our official channels

Comrel project?

> (forums, gentoo-user mailing list, IRC, etc.).

Forums, PR projects.  So far we haven't had anybody become a dev
merely on the basis of hanging out on IRC/gentoo-user that I'm aware
of, though this certainly seems like it could be a project.

> * Helping users provide relevant information on bug reports.

Bug-wrangler project.

> All those are tasks making a very significant contribution to Gentoo.
> All of those are tasks that don't require being a member of any project
> to be performed, just having the relevant experience and skills.

Sure, but so far I don't think anybody has actually become a developer
NOT being on a project.  Also, I suspect that if somebody did want to
contribute ONLY in one of those areas they'd be a perfect candidate to
create and lead such a project where one doesn't exist.

> Also why have to be the project leads the one determining the activity
> non ebuild developers do? After all GLEP39 clearly states too: " Instead
> the practical responsibility of a lead is "whatever the members
> require", and if that isn't satisfied, the members can get a new lead
> (if they can find somebody to take the job!)."

Project leads don't generally dictate what project members work on.
They might have a coordination or dispute resolution role.

And there is nothing that says a project lead has to be an ebuild developer.

This assumes some kind of adversarial relationship between project
leads and their members, when in fact as you point out the leads are
chosen BY the project members.

>
>> The GLEP *explicitly* defines that there are
>> both ebuild and non-ebuild contributions, so whatever you're making up,
>> it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>
> The GLEP defines different requirements for those two sets of peoples
> with the second set having harsher constraints (i.e. not having the
> possibility of having their contributions not being filtered by a third
> party). This second group happens to be "non-ebuild contributors".

This is reasonable to point out (IMO), though again I think you're
assuming some kind of hostile intent here where I don't think it is
warranted.  I believe the intent here is to describe the status quo,
which will of course require some care since the status quo wasn't
well-defined previously.

Do you have any suggestions for better wording here?  Are you
advocating for requiring all developers to be members or a project, or
do you have a better way to define the qualifications for developer
status that does not invoke projects?

-- 
Rich