On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > Why exactly do we need the distinction? (sorry, i can't see any benefit > but more confusion).
The GLEP was originally created to help the architecture testers with a
specific privilege: read-only CVS access. This would allow them to improve
the quality of the ebuilds sooner, help the architecture teams identify
working (and perhaps even more important, not-working) tools and perform
tests on the global system to make sure the distribution is in top-notch
shape.
The e-mail address was not that important, but was decided to bring it in
"the package" because it would be some sort of appreciation to those users.
One general idea was that arch testers wouldn't be developers because they
have no formal obligation to the Gentoo project: we don't expect them to put
in x hours a week in Gentoo, read the gentoo-core and -dev mailinglists or
even catch up with most of the events that happen in Gentoo (like GLEPs and
such). This is also a request from the arch testers, because many of them
*can't* devote much time to Gentoo anyway.
That sentiment is reflected in using a subdomain address, and from what we
heard no tester had any problems with this (the e-mail addy is far less
important than the rest of the GLEP).
There was never an idea of marking one type of developer different from
another (this was in fact specifically rejected in the first meeting) but
rather giving non-developers some appreciation. Perhaps the proposed
appreciation is misplaced - fine, if that is the sentiment, we'll try to get
a better one.
One (important) part of the GLEP is the request that the arch tester has
passed the Staff Quiz and that a probation period should be passed before
read-only CVS access is given. I'm personally wondering how close this comes
to becoming a real developer (which, iirc, is something the trustees should
be called upon as the Foundation should keep track of "what" defines a
"Gentoo Developer", as developers have voting rights on the Foundation
board). As I said before, the arch testers themselves aren't asking for
being a developer but rather for additional tools to help them do their
work.
I've said it in the first meeting and I'll reiterate: what is the sentiment
of the arch testers in this case (if they are still reading this thread)?
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
PS I would be quite surprised if there is *one* arch tester who feels good
with this entire thread; it doesn't show of much appreciation between
people. There is a huge difference between saying that a group has "made
an unfortunate decision" or "did not grasp the essence of the proposal
and situation needed to make a good decision", and "abuse of powers".
PPS
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670883395/002-5294388-6434402?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
--
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
Gentoo Council Member
The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>
pgpNhQkaIMAU5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
