Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST] > >The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using > >it... > > > > I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree > should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be > part of two projects but neither gives me access to the tree so I would > get an @staff.g.o and am fine with that. It lets people I email outside > of the project know that I am staff and not a developer.
I rather strongly disagree. It is true that in the past we have used the word "staff" to denote devs who do not have gentoo-x86 commit access. I've never been in favor of that terminology, however. Devs are devs, whether they have gentoo-x86 commit access or not. Our doc devs or infra devs can break Gentoo in ways just as horrific as our devs w/ tree access can. Infra, doc, or tree access just determines which part of Gentoo you're allowed to break (in a rather twisted way of looking at things). It's terribly important to me that we not somehow end up with first-class devs and second-class devs. My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have preferred "volunteer" if it weren't for the niggling fact that we're all volunteers.) -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgp2nRREEEbCZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
